Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 04, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001811 (Formerly PL200248)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Timbertin (Dundas/Bloor) Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: MCR T4.0 C1.5 R3.0

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit a 25 storey mixed use building

Property Address/Description: 1540-1550 Bloor Street West

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 19 263422 STE 04 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001811

Legacy Case No.: PL200248

OLT Lead Case: OLT-21-001811

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200248

OLT Case Name: Timbertin (Dundas/Bloor) Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: December 10, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Timbertrin (Dundas/Bloor) Inc. (“Appellant”)	Maggie Bassani
City of Toronto (“City”)	Laura Bisset

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. RUSSO ON DECEMBER 10, 2021 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) is with respect to the appeals filed under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) as a result of the City of Toronto (“City”) and their Council’s failure to make a decision on an application within the statutory timeframe specified by the Act. The lands subject to the appeal are municipally known as 1540-1550 Bloor Street West (the “Subject Site”).

2The Parties have settled and worked through previously contested issues and thus a settlement hearing was scheduled before the Tribunal.

Description of Subject Site and Surrounding Context

3The Subject Site is located at the northwest corner of the Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West intersection. It is irregular in shape with an area of approximately 2,467 square metres (“m²”) and has frontages of approximately 54.2 metres (“m”) along Bloor Street West and approximately 41.8 m along Dundas Street West.

[4] The Subject Site is an assembly of four parcels, occupied with the following buildings:

• 1540 Bloor Street West: a 2-storey mixed-use building with vacant non-residential space at grade and nine vacant residential units on the second level;
• 1542-1544 Bloor Street West: a 2-storey mixed-use building with a vacant storefront and a veterinary office at grade and a residential unit above;
• 1546-1548 Bloor Street West: a 2-storey mixed-use building with a restaurant at grade and two residential units above; and
• 1550 Bloor Street West: a 2-storey commercial building with a commercial use at grade and a personal service shop above.

5The northern portion of the Subject Site currently contains a surface parking lot that connects to a public laneway extending westerly from the subject site to Dorval Road. This parking area is currently used as a paid public parking lot, with approximately 10 to 12 parking spaces and four car-share parking spaces.

6In total, there are currently 12 rental residential units on the subject site, 11 of which are vacant. One (1) is a bachelor unit, four (4) are one-bedroom units and seven (7) are two-bedroom units.

7The Subject Site is located at the Bloor-Dundas crossroads. It is immediately adjacent to Dundas West subway station on the Line 2 – Bloor-Danforth Subway, which also provides connections to several streetcar and bus routes, and is approximately 200 m west of the Bloor Station on the UP Express and the Kitchener GO Line. The Kitchener GO Line is currently being expanded and upgraded as part of the Regional Express Rail (“RER”) project, with planned 15-minute two-way all-day service. As a result of its location at the interchange of major north-south and east-west higher order transit lines, the area is one of the most transit-accessible locations in the City and has been identified as a Mobility Hub by Metrolinx.

8Directly north of the Subject Site is the Dundas West subway station, a single-storey building with a wraparound bus and streetcar platform. To the west of the station is a surface parking lot over top of the subway corridor. To the north of the subway station is Edna Avenue, with low-rise residential uses fronting the north side of the street and a law office in a converted house-form building at the northwest corner of Edna Avenue and Dundas Street West. Further north, on the west side of Dundas Street West towards Chelsea Avenue, is a low-rise mixed-use mainstreet retail strip with a variety of businesses at grade. The interior of the neighbourhood consists predominantly of low-rise residential uses. Chelsea Avenue Playground is located approximately 170 m to the northwest of the Subject Site.

9To the west of the Subject Site, at the northern portion, is a sliver of land that is part of an existing right-of-way. To the west of the sliver is a private one-foot reserve dating from July 25, 1889. To the west of the reserve is a 3.0 to 6.0 m (width) public lane that extends westward to Dorval Road. The one-foot reserve currently prevents the Subject Site from gaining access to the laneway. To the west of the site along the Bloor Street frontage is a low-rise two (2)- and three (3)-storey mixed-use retail strip. A Site Plan Approval application, filed in April 2015, is under review to permit construction of a three (3)-storey addition above the two (2)-storey buildings at 1552-1556 Bloor Street West, abutting the Subject Site.

10To the south of the Subject Site, west of the 13-storey building at 2333 Dundas Street West described above, are detached house-form buildings along the south side of Bloor Street West containing residential and commercial uses, including three houses which are being renovated to convert into four (4)-storey rental buildings with nine rental units in each. South of Bloor Street along Alhambra Avenue is a low-rise residential area. To the south of 2333 Dundas Street West is 2299 Dundas Street West, a four (4)-storey former office building purchased by the City to be repurposed into a municipal shelter, and a two (2)-storey gym. Further south along Dundas Street West is a strip of house-form buildings used for both residential and commercial uses.

11To the east of the Subject Site, at the northeast corner of Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West, is the Crossways complex, as described above. Further east, on the east side of the rail corridor, is a nine (9)-storey residential co-operative building (Perth Avenue Housing Co-op, 120 Perth Avenue). On the south side of Bloor, beyond the existing Bishop Marrocco/Thomas Merton Catholic Secondary School, east of the rail corridor, is 1439 Bloor Street West (described above), which is currently vacant.

Proposal Background

12A previous owner of the Subject Site submitted a rezoning application in June 2007 for a portion of the site (1540 Bloor Street West alone). The application was revised in August 2009 to permit the development of a 27-storey mixed use building (92.5 m, including mechanical penthouse) with a density of 16.1 Floor Space Index (“FSI”).

13The application was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) due to Council’s failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframe. In its decision dated March 7, 2010, the OMB denied the appeal in part because the proposed building height and density were “too large for the site and inappropriate for the area” and were not consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Bloor-Dundas Avenue Study which was endorsed by Council in October 2009. The Decision stated that the size of the site at that time restricted its ability to accommodate reasonable transition.

141540 Bloor Street West property was subsequently sold to the current Owner (the “Appellant”), who also acquired the properties at 1542-1550 Bloor Street West, rounding out the development site to its current size and configuration.

15The Appellant preceded to file a new Application in December 2019 (the Original Proposal”) with the City. The Original Proposal contemplated the redevelopment of the Subject Site with a 25-storey mixed use building containing approximately 327 residential units, 807 m² of retail gross floor area (“GFA”) at grade and an FSI of 10.73. The City deemed the application complete as of December 20, 2019.

16The Appellant appealed the Application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (now the Ontario Land Tribunal, the “Tribunal”) on June 25, 2020 due to City Council’s failure to make a decision within the time period set out in the Act.

17Continued discussions between City staff and the Appellant’s Planning Consultant’s led to the Appellant providing the Tribunal a revised proposal March 15, 2021 (the “March 2021 Proposal”). The March 2021 Proposal was for a 27-storey mixed-use building, comprised of a stepped six (6)- to 14-storey base building with retail space at grade and a 13-storey tower element above. The proposed density for the March 2021 Proposal was 10.34 FSI.

18City Staff recommended opposing the revised March 2021 Proposal and City Council adopted the recommendation. However, continued discussions led to the Parties agreeing to Tribunal led mediation and the ultimate resolution of contested issues which subsequently resulted in the Appellant filing a settlement offer with the City on September 20, 2021. City Council adopted the positive recommendations of City staff and accepted the Settlement Proposal now before the Tribunal (Settlement Proposal and Plans dated August 30, 2021).

Settlement Proposal

19The Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal, as reflected in the Current Plans, is for a 27-storey mixed-use building inclusive of a six (6)-storey base building on the west side of the tower element and a three (3)- to eight (8)-storey base building on the north side of the tower element, both of which step down to a one-storey base building at the rear. The base building will incorporate a three (3)-storey streetwall height along Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West to the south and east.

20The Settlement Proposal includes an aggregate GFA of approximately 24,057 m², including 680 m² of retail GFA and 23,377 m² of residential GFA. The residential component of the proposal results in 355 dwelling units, of which at least 10% of the non-replacement dwelling units will have three bedrooms and at least 15% will have two bedrooms or more. The Proposal has a FSI of 9.84, reduced from the Original Proposal’s FSI of 10.73.

Applicable Legislation and Policies

21Land use planning in Ontario is a policy-led system implemented in hierarchical fashion. This system is deliberately crafted to recognize that there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to implementing policy framework, given the diversity of Ontario’s local communities. As such, the broader Provincial policies and objectives are to be implemented by each municipality through their Official Plan (“OP”), Zoning By-laws (“ZBL”), issue-specific guidelines, etc.

22Although the Parties have settled their issues, the Tribunal must still determine if the proposal meets provincial interests and municipal policy framework. In adjudicating the appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest enumerated in s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”) and pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal must also find that the proposal conforms with policies of the provincial plan: A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the “Growth Plan”). Lastly the Tribunal must be satisfied with the proposal’s conformity with the City OP, and that it represents good land-use planning in the public interest.

THE HEARING

23The Tribunal swore in Peter Smith. Provided in Exhibit 2 was his Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form and Curriculum Vitae. Having reviewed both and having heard viva voce his credentials with no objection, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Smith to provide opinion evidence in the field of land-use planning.

[24] Mr. Smith provided his viva voce testimony to the Tribunal, but also relied on written and visual evidence found in: Exhibit 2- Settlement Affidavit of Peter F. Smith Exhibit 3- Document Book of Timbertrin (Dundas/Bloor Inc.) Exhibit 4- Visual Evidence Exhibit Book

25Mr. Smith provided a brief history of the application and advised the Tribunal he was retained by Timbertrin (Bloor/Dundas) Inc., the registered owner of the Subject Site in May 2018, to provide land use planning and urban design services.

26Provided originally to the City in the Appellant’s Application to rezone the Subject Site, and now before the Tribunal in Exhibit 3, Mr. Smith had prepared a Planning and Urban Design Rationale report, dated December 2019 (the “Planning Rationale”). The Planning Rationale was in support of Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBLA”) with respect to the Subject Site.

27As part of his retainer, Mr. Smith advised the Tribunal that he had reviewed the plans and statistics prepared in support of the Application to the City, as well as supporting technical reports and drawings submitted over the course of the application review process. He has visited the Subject Site and the surrounding area on a number of occasions, liaised with the Owner and the Appellant Team, and met with City Staff throughout the application review process. Mr. Smith was also involved in the without prejudice Tribunal-led mediation, which took place in June 2021, and provided advice and input with respect to planning policy and urban design guidelines into the architectural plans now before the Tribunal in the Settlement Proposal.

28Mr. Smith opined that the numerous revisions throughout the proposal’s long history has led to an appealing, well designed and compatible built form, in an appropriate location that is extremely transit supportive. He further opined that any public realm issues have been resolved by setting back the building further on Dundas Street than originally proposed as well as numerous other Urban Design tools and methods that the Parties have been able to come to terms with and agree to.

29Mr. Smith provided a history and chronology of the proposal for the Tribunal and summarized its evolution in Table 1 below (Exhibit 2, Paragraph 29, Table 1).

The Planning Act

30Section 2 of the Act sets out matters of provincial interest for which planning authorities shall have regard to, among other matters, in carrying out their responsibilities to the legislation. Mr. Smith opined that the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal has regard for relevant matters of provincial interest, as set out in Section 2 of the Act.

Provincial Policy Statement

31One of the key policy directions of the PPS is to build strong communities through the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns that support strong, liveable and healthy communities, protect the environment, and facilitate economic growth.

32Mr. Smith opined, as compared with the 2014 PPS, which was analyzed in the Planning Rationale, the 2020 PPS, has no discernable differences between relevant policies, other than an increased emphasis on promoting transit-supportive development, encouraging an increase in the mix and supply of housing, protecting the environment and public safety, reducing barriers and costs for development and providing greater certainty, and supporting the economy and job creation. Mr. Smith opined this increased emphasis in PPS 2020 even more so reinforces consistency of the Settlement Proposal with the PPS.

[33] Mr. Smith directed the Tribunal to his Affidavit where he reviewed the policies of the PPS in respect to relevance and consistency to the Settlement Proposal. Here he highlighted:

• Policy 1.1.1(a), which promotes efficient development and land use patterns; Policy 1.1.1 (b), which directs the accommodation of an appropriate range and mix of residential types and other uses; and Policy 1.1.1(e), which promotes the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.
• Policy 1.1.3.2, which promotes densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and are transit-supportive, where transit exists or is planned.
• Policy 1.1.3.3, which directs planning authorities to identify and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment, where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities.
• Policy 1.4.3, which encourages the provision of an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities by, among other things, promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and support the use of active transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed and requiring transit-supportive development and prioritizing intensification in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations.
• Policy 1.6.7.4, which promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support the current and future use of transit.
• Policy 1.7.1, which states that long-term prosperity will be supported by optimizing the use of land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities.

34Mr. Smith opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS, in particular, with the policies relating to residential intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure optimization.

The Growth Plan

35Mr. Smith highlighted Schedule 5 of the Growth Plan identifies the Kitchener GO line/UP Express line as a “priority transit corridor” and the Bloor-Danforth subway line as “existing higher order transit”. With these transit options in very close proximity to the Settlement Proposal, he opined that conformity with transit related policies were demonstrated, including but not exclusive to s. 2.2.4(1), s. 2.2.4(2), s. 2.2.4(10) and s. 3.2.3(1) – (2).

36He also noted that the Subject Site is within a settlement area conforming with s. 2.2.1(2)(c), and the Settlement Proposal’s urban and compact built form optimizes infrastructure and supports the achievement of complete communities conforming with s. 2.2.1(3)(c) and s. 2.2.1(4).

37Mr. Smith provided in his Affidavit and viva voce the opinion that the proposed development conforms with Growth Plan policies s. 2.2.2(3), s. 2.2.4(3)(a) and s. 2.2.4(6) relating to minimum density targets of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare.

38It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal, as reflected in the current plans, conforms with the Growth Plan. In particular, with policies relating to the creation of complete communities, optimizing the use of land and infrastructure, as well as diversity and range of housing options.

The City Official Plan

39Mr. Smith again directed the Tribunal to his Affidavit in Exhibit 2. Here he reviewed the relevant policies of the City OP in relation to the Settlement Proposal.

[40] Policy 2.2(2) provides that “growth will be directed to the Centres, Avenues, Employment Areas and the Downtown as shown on Map 2” and sets out a number of objectives that can be met by this strategy, including:

• using municipal land, infrastructure and services efficiently;
• concentrating jobs and people in areas well served by surface transit and rapid transit stations;
• promoting mixed use development to increase opportunities for living close to work and to encourage walking and cycling for local trips;
• offering opportunities for people of all means to be affordably housed;
• facilitating social interaction, public safety and cultural and economic activity;
• improving air quality and energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and
• protecting neighbourhoods and green spaces from the effects of nearby development.

41Under s. 2.2.3, the OP states that reurbanization along Avenues can create new housing and jobs while improving the pedestrian environment, the look of the street, shopping opportunities and transit service for community residents. Policy 2.2.3(1) provides that the reurbanization of the Avenues will be achieved through the preparation of “Avenue Studies”. Mr. Smith advised the Tribunal that the Bloor-Dundas Avenue Study was completed in 2009.

42Section 2.3.1 sets out policies creating and maintaining healthy neighbourhoods by focusing most new residential development in Centres, along the Avenues and in other strategic locations, to help preserve the shape and feel of established neighbourhoods.

43Section 2.4 includes policies related to transportation and land use. Map 4 (Higher Order Transit Corridors) shows the existing TTC Line 2 Bloor-Danforth subway line and the existing Kitchener GO Rail line, as well as a “GO/TTC Interchange” as an expansion element.

[44] Policy 4.5(2) of the OP sets out a number of criteria for development within Mixed Use Areas, including:

• locating and massing new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale;
• locating and massing new buildings so as to adequately limit shadow impacts on adjacent Neighbourhoods, particularly during the spring and fall equinoxes;
• locating and massing new buildings to frame the edges of streets and parks with good proportion and maintaining sunlight and comfortable wind conditions for pedestrians on adjacent streets, parks and open spaces;
• providing an attractive, comfortable and safe pedestrian environment;
• taking advantage of nearby transit services;
• providing good site access and circulation and an adequate supply of parking for residents and visitors;
• locating and screening service areas, ramps and garbage storage to minimize the impact on adjacent streets and residences; and
• providing indoor and outdoor recreation space for building residents.

45Mr. Smith opined, the current plans conform with the public realm and built form policies in s. 3.1.1, s. 3.1.2 and s. 3.1.3 of the OP which were in force at the time of submission of the Application.

46Section 3.2.1 of the OP includes policies related to housing. Policy 3.2.1(6) sets out provisions applicable to “new development that would have the effect of removing all or a part of a private building or related group of buildings and would result in the loss of six or more rental housing units”. Mr. Smith opined that this policy is particularly pertinent, as the proposal requires the demolition of more than six rental units, and therefore the Appellant filed a Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion application, and will work with City Staff to finalize the application, pursuant to Chapter 667 of the City Municipal Code, and enter into a Section 111 agreement to permit the demolition of the 12 existing rental dwelling units, subject to conditions including the replacement of the existing rental housing units in the new development and the provision of a tenant relocation assistance plan.

47Mr. Smith concluded his evidence of the City OP, opining that the current plan, and the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal conforms overall with the City OP, in particular with the applicable Avenues identification and Mixed Use Areas designation and the policies related to growth management and housing.

Zoning By-Law No. 438-86

48Mr. Smith advised the Tribunal that the in-force ZBL applying to the Subject Site, at the time of the appeal, was ZBL No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, as amended.

49The Subject Site is zoned MCR T4.0 C1.5 R3.0 by By-law No. 438-86, with a maximum height limit of 20.0 m (plus a 5.0 m mechanical penthouse). The zoning is a result of the Bloor-Dundas Avenue Study, reflective of standards introduced by By-law 1222-2009.

50The MCR (“Mainstreets Commercial Residential”) zone permits a broad range of residential, commercial, office and retail uses, with a maximum overall density of 4.0 FSI, including a maximum density of 1.5 FSI for non-residential uses and a maximum density of 3.0 FSI for residential uses.

51Mr. Smith advised the Tribunal that exception 12(2) 347(9) permits an increase in the height and density otherwise permitted in return for the provision of facilities, services or matters pursuant to Section 37 of the Act. The Settlement Proposal is seeking to utilize this exception and in the opinion of Mr. Smith its use of Section 37 benefits is appropriate and will be expanded on later in the decision.

52Subsection (b) provides that the applicable height and density for the 1540 Bloor Street West property would be in accordance with the MCR T5.5 C2.0 R4.5 density limits, with a maximum permitted height of 32.0 m on the easterly portion of the property, stepping down to 20.0 m on the northwest portion of the property.

53Subsection (d) permits greater height and density for a consolidated site that also includes the properties at 1542 to 1552 Bloor Street West in accordance with the MCR T7.0 C2.0 R6.0 density limits, with a maximum permitted height of 47.0 m on the easterly portion of the property, stepping down to 32.0 m on the westerly portion of the property, provided that the building podium occupies at least 80% of the length of the applicable build-to area.

54Mr. Smith further advised and clarified for the Tribunal that the Subject Site is currently not subject to the new City-wide ZBL No. 569-2013. However, as part of the Settlement, it is proposed to add the subject site to By-law No. 569-2013 and rezone it to the Commercial Residential (“CR”) Zone with site specific provisions. As the regulations for the CR Zone are now in full force and effect, City Legal has confirmed that a single site-specific amendment to By-law No. 569-2013 is sufficient, and an amendment to By-law No. 438-86 is not required.

55Mr. Smith concluded with his opinion that this is appropriate as the proposal generally meets the intent of the ZBL that applies to the Subject Lands, but further provides amicable resolution to the Parties by way of Settlement and seeking the site-specific amendment to newly adopted City-wide ZBL No. 569-2013.

Tall Building Guidelines

56On May 7, 2013, City Council adopted the City-wide Tall Building Design Guidelines (the “TBD Guidelines”).

57The TBD Guidelines include sections related to site context, site organization, tall building design and pedestrian realm. Among other matters, the TBD Guidelines recommend a minimum separation distance of 25 m between towers (excluding balconies), a minimum tower setback of 12.5 m from side and rear property lines or centre line of an abutting lane, and a maximum residential tower floor plate of 750 m². A tower stepback of 3 m. is specified above the face of the base building, including balconies.

58Although not all aspects of the TBD Guidelines are met by the current plans and the Settlement Proposal in its entirety, Mr. Smith opined the TBD Guidelines include a level of flexibility being guidelines not policy.

59Mr. Smith provided his opinion to the Tribunal regarding the TBD Guidelines, as reflected in the current plans and the Settlement Proposal. He opined the development proposal provides the appropriate regard for the City-wide TBD Guidelines.

Witness Conclusions

60Mr. Smith, with his viva voce analysis and written Affidavit, opined that the Settlement Proposal, as reflected in the Current Plans, has appropriate regard to the Act and represents good planning in the public interest. Also, he concluded that the proposed ZBLA is consistent with the 2020 PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan, and the City OP.

61A Section 37 contribution has been agreed to as part of the Settlement Proposal, which includes 14 new affordable rental dwelling units that will be maintained for a period of at least 99 years. Mr. Smith opined this form and tenure of housing will contribute to the ongoing mix of dwelling units available in the area, and the City more broadly. Mr. Smith opined the incentives obtained by the Appellant are appropriate and the inclusion of 14 new affordable rental units being made available meets the criteria required by the Act and Section 37.

62Mr. Smith concluded with his opinion that the Settlement Proposal, as reflected in the Current Plans, will achieve an appropriate balance in implementing the full range of planning policies articulated above. He therefore recommended approval of the requested ZBLA, subject to a number of conditions as set out in the City Council resolution dated November 9, 2021 and included in his Affidavit in Exhibit 2.

Analysis and Disposition

63The Tribunal, having reviewed all evidence provided in Exhibits 1-4, and having heard the viva voce opinions of Mr. Smith, accepts the uncontroverted expert land-use planning evidence provided by the witness. The Tribunal finds that the proposed planning instruments, will permit the development and have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial Interest and s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal also finds that the ZBLA is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, the City OP, and represents good land-use planning, and is in the public interest.

64The Tribunal, having been provided evidence and having heard from Mr. Smith that Section 37 contributions proposed meet the provisions set out in the Act, find its use to be appropriate and acceptable.

INTERIM ORDER

65The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment is approved in principle.

66The Tribunal will withhold its final Order pending completion of the items set out in Attachment 1, to be read as amended in accordance with this Decision and Order.

67If the parties have not completed the items in Attachment 1 within six months of the issuance of this Decision, the parties shall provide a written status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by that same date.

68The Member may be spoken to, at a time that is convenient to the Tribunal and the Parties, should any difficulties arise in finalizing the items set out in Attachment 1.

“M. Russo”

M. RUSSO 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

OLT Case No. PL200248 OLT Case Name: Timbertrin (Dundas/Bloor) Inc. v. Toronto (City) 1540-1550 Bloor Street West, Toronto

1. The Decision of the Tribunal is to allow the appeal of Timbertrin (Dundas/Bloor) Inc. (the “Owner”) of City Council's neglect or failure to make a decision on the Owner's application for a Zoning By-law Amendment, in part, and approve, in principle, the revised proposal for the lands municipally known as 1540-1550 Bloor Street West, Toronto (the “Site”), substantially in accordance with the architectural plans attached as Exhibit “C” to the Affidavit of Peter Smith, dated December 8, 2021 (Exhibit 2).

2. The Tribunal's Order is withheld until the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that: a. the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is in a form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and other appropriate divisions, and among other matters includes securing: i. The full replacement of the existing rental dwelling units on the lands at 1540-1550 Bloor Street West; ii. The rents, rental tenure, unit mix, and unit sizes of the replacement rental dwelling units; iii. An acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan, addressing the right for existing tenants to return to a replacement rental unit on the lands at similar rent and other assistance to mitigate hardship, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; iv. Any other rental housing-related matters in conformity with Policy 3.2.1.6 of the Official Plan; v. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of all non-replacement rental dwelling units at 1540-1550 Bloor Street West as three-bedroom units and a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of all non-replacement rental dwelling units on the lands as two-bedroom units; vi. The on-site parking ratios to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services; vii. Space within the development for installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, for both storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers By-law Chapter 68-10.

b. A Section 37 Agreement satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, has been executed and registered on the Site securing the following community benefits and matters of legal convenience:

Community Benefits i. The owner shall provide and maintain fourteen (14) new affordable rental dwelling units on the lands at 1540-1550 Bloor Street West for a minimum period of ninety-nine (99) years beginning from the date that each such unit is first occupied, in accordance with the following:

1. The fourteen (14) new affordable rental dwelling units shall collectively contain a total gross floor area that is no less than 8,685 square feet;
2. At least one (1) of the new affordable rental dwelling units shall be a three-bedroom rental unit with an average unit size that is no less than the average unit size of a non-affordable three-bedroom dwelling unit within the development;
3. At least three (3) of the new affordable rental dwelling units shall be two-bedroom rental units with an average unit size that is no less than the average unit size of a non-affordable two-bedroom dwelling unit within the development;
4. At least nine (9) of the new affordable rental dwelling units shall be one-bedroom rental units with an average unit size that is no less than the average unit size of a non-affordable one-bedroom dwelling unit within the development;
5. The remaining one (1) new affordable rental dwelling unit may be of any bedroom type but shall have an average unit size that is no less than the average unit size of a non-affordable rental dwelling unit of the same bedroom type within the development;
6. The fourteen (14) new affordable rental dwelling units shall be provided in vertically and/or horizontally contiguous groups of six (6) or more dwelling units within the development;
7. The location and layouts of the new affordable rental dwelling units within the development shall be to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
8. The owner shall provide and maintain the new affordable rental dwelling units as secured rental housing for a minimum period of ninety-nine (99) years beginning from the date that each such unit is first occupied. During such secured rental period, no affordable rental dwelling unit shall be registered as a condominium or any other form of ownership housing that provides a right to exclusive possession of a dwelling unit, including life-lease or co-ownership, and no application shall be made to demolish any affordable rental dwelling unit or to convert any affordable rental dwelling unit to a non-residential rental purpose. Upon the expiration of the secured rental period, the owner shall continue to provide and maintain the units as rental dwelling units, unless and until such time as the owner has applied for, and obtained, all approvals necessary to do otherwise;
9. The owner shall provide and maintain all fourteen (14) new affordable rental dwelling units at affordable rents, as currently defined in the Official Plan, for a minimum period of 99 years, during which the rent (inclusive of utilities) charged to any tenant of a new affordable rental dwelling unit shall not exceed one (1) times the average rent for the same bedroom type in the City of Toronto, as reported by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in its most recent Rental Market Survey; and
10. Notwithstanding paragraph 9 above, after the first year of occupancy of an affordable rental dwelling unit, the rent (inclusive of utilities) charged to any first tenant or new tenant of a new affordable rental dwelling unit may be escalated annually by not more than the annual provincial rent guideline, regardless of whether such guideline is applicable to the unit under the Residential Tenancies Act or any successor legislation governing residential tenancies in Ontario, until the tenancy ends;
11. At least six (6) months in advance of any new affordable rental dwelling unit being made available for rent, the owner shall develop and implement a Tenant Access Plan in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
12. The fourteen (14) new affordable rental dwelling units shall be made ready and available for occupancy no later than the date by which seventy percent (70%) of the new dwelling units erected on the lands are available and ready for occupancy;
13. The owner shall provide all tenants of the affordable rental dwelling units with access to, and use of, all indoor and outdoor amenities in the development at no extra charge and on the same terms and conditions as any other resident of the building without the need to pre-book or pay a fee, unless specifically required as a customary practice for private bookings;
14. The owner shall provide all tenants of the affordable rental dwellings units with laundry facilities on the same basis as other residents of the development at no extra charge;
15. The owner shall provide all tenants of the affordable rental dwelling units with access to permanent and visitor vehicular and bicycle parking on the same terms and conditions as any other resident of the development, and in accordance with the Zoning By-law;

Matters of Legal Convenience i. The construction and maintenance of the development in accordance with the Tier 1 performance measures of the Toronto Green Standard, as adopted by City Council at its meeting held on October 26 and 27, 2009 through the adoption of item PG32.3 of the Planning and Growth Management Committee, and as updated by Toronto City Council at its meeting held on December 5, 6 and 7, 2017 through the adoption of PG23.9 of the Planning and Growth Committee, and as may be further amended by Council from time to time; ii. The conveyance for nominal value of lands for a 0.4 metre right-of-way widening along Bloor Street West and lands for a 6.0 metre radius corner rounding at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West; iii. The conveyance for nominal value of an easement for public access over lands on the north side of the proposed building with a minimum width of 6.0 metres and a minimum height of 6.0 metres, over the travelled portion of the driveway, along with a 1.5 metre wide pedestrian walkway, which are to connect to the adjacent public lane in the future, as shown on Drawing A103, prepared by IBI Group and dated August 2021; iv. The provision of pedestrian clearways on Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West with a minimum width of 2.1 metres, which may include the obligation to convey an easement over a portion of the property, to achieve the 2.1 metre-wide clearway, as shown on Drawing A103, prepared by IBI Group and dated August, 2021; v. The following Transportation Demand Management measures:

1. A cash contribution of $50,000.00 for one bike share station to be located in the immediate vicinity of the property, with such cash contribution paid by the owner prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the development and allocated in accordance with the Transportation Demand Management Plan, and such cash contribution shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Publication No. 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date of the Section 37 Agreement to the date of payment;
2. two (2) car share parking spaces to be located within the proposed underground parking garage;
3. one (1) bike share membership (1 year membership) per dwelling unit; and
4. two (2) bicycle repair stations on the property; vi. The peer review of the submitted Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment Report, at the owner's sole expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; vii. A Wind Tunnel analysis to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; viii. A revised Landscape Plan, Soil Volume Plan, Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan, for review to the satisfaction of General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; and any necessary financial securities, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and that such matters arising from such studies and plans, be secured if required; ix. The owner's agreement to implement any required recommendations and/or mitigation measures from the accepted reports and plans listed in Recommendations 4(b)(vi) to (viii), through the Site Plan approval process for the Site, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; x. The requirements of the Toronto Transit Commission regarding warning clauses and other requirements noted in the TTC comments, including but not limited to those identified in the TTC response letters dated April 1, 2020 and January 18, 2021; xi. The requirements of Metrolinx regarding technical review as noted in the Metrolinx comments, dated May 11, 2020, and the initial comments for a future site plan application were also provided for consideration, including but not limited to, a final noise study for review, warning clauses, and the granting of an environmental easement; xii. The requirements of the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board's regarding warning clauses and signage with respect to school accommodation issues; xiii. The owner's agreement that prior to the commencement of any excavation and shoring work, the owner shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the local Councillor, and thereafter shall implement the plan during the course of construction; the Construction Management Plan will include, but not be limited to the following construction-related details: noise, dust, size and location of staging areas, location and function of gates, dates of significant concrete pouring, lighting details, vehicular parking and queuing locations, street closures, parking and laneway uses and access, refuse storage, site security, site supervisor contact information, and a communication strategy with the surrounding community, including matters related to the construction of streets or infrastructure, and any other matters requested by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

c. The Owner has, at its sole cost and expense: i. Submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report and supporting documents (the "Engineering Reports"), including confirmation of water and fire flow, sanitary and storm capacity, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water; ii. Addressed all outstanding engineering issues, and any other comments that may arise further to the review of materials submitted as part of the process to address the issues set out in the memoranda from Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Transportation Services; iii. Secured the design and the provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure and/or new municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports 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 and/or new infrastructure are required to support the development; iv. Submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study, and a Parking and Loading Study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such studies, be secured if required; and v. Provided on-site parking ratios to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services, supported by a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Plan, submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner. Should the accepted Transportation Demand Management Plan include any cash contribution toward Transportation Demand Management measures, such cash contribution shall be paid by the owner prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the development and allocated in accordance with the Transportation Demand Management Plan, and such cash contribution shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Publication No. 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date of the Section 37 Agreement to the date of payment.

d. City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application No. 19 263430 STE 04 RH in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to allow for the demolition of the twelve (12) existing rental dwelling units at 1540-1550 Bloor Street West and the owner has entered into one or more agreements with the City, and those agreement(s) have been registered on title to 1540-1550 Bloor Street West, securing rental housing related matters, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

3. The Tribunal may be spoken to should difficulties arise in the implementation of this Decision.