Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 13, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002411
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 12, 2022
(Formerly PL170905)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 567485 Ontario Ltd. and 887343 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request by the City of Toronto
Existing Designation: Apartment Neighbourhoods, Neighbourhoods and Natural Areas
Proposed Designated: Apartment Neighbourhoods, Neighbourhoods and Natural Areas
Purpose: To permit an infill residential development
Property Address/Description: 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
Reference Number: 16 272001 NNY 23 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002411
Legacy Case No.: PL170905
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002411
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL170905
OLT Case Name: 567485 Ontario Ltd. 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: 567485 Ontario Ltd. and 887343 Ontario Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 – Refusal of Application by the City of Toronto
Existing Zoning: RM3 and R4
Proposed Zoning: Site specific to be determined
Purpose: To permit an infill residential development
Property Address/Description: 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
Reference Number: 16 272001 NNY 23 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002412
Legacy Case No.: PL170906
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002411
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL170905
Heard: June 1, 2022 by video hearing and August 12, 2022 in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
567485 Ontario Ltd. and 887343 Ontario Ltd.
D. Bronskill
Estelle Kosoy
A. Platt and A. Lusty
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
T. Duncan
City of Toronto
R. Kallio
DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND S. MANN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1567485 Ontario Ltd. and 887343 Ontario Ltd. (“Appellants”) appealed the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions with respect to the Appellants’ applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments regarding the lands located at 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue (“subject lands”).
2The subject lands are located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue West and the west side of Easton Road. At the southwest corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Easton Road at 307 Sheppard Avenue West is a property owned by Estelle Kosoy (“Kosoy property”). The Kosoy property is the subject of a separate nine-storey mixed-use development proposal.
3The subject lands are roughly 6.58 hectares (“ha”) in size. Presently on the subject lands is an apartment complex of ten blocks with a total of 415 rental units at 325 Bogert Avenue and eight detached dwellings on Bogert Avenue and Poyntz Avenue.
4There have been a series of development proposals for the subject lands over the years. The present proposal before the Tribunal is for the redevelopment of the subject lands with a multi-building mixed-use development consisting of four new towers with heights of 17, 19, 27 and 29 storeys. It would require the demolition of seven of the ten existing rental blocks. The proposed development would result in the subject lands having 1,538 residential units (including 148 retained units), a residential gross floor area (“GFA”) of 129,723 square metres (“m2”), a non-residential GFA of 2,940 m2, a density of 3.22 Floor Space Index (“FSI”), 1,570 parking spaces (including 230 visitor spaces and 29 spaces for retail uses), and 1,077 long-term and 108 short-term bicycle spaces.
5The proposed development envisions the extension of Bogert Avenue through the subject lands to connect with Sheppard Avenue West and the creation of a private road extending south of the proposed Bogert Avenue extension. The proposed development also includes the creation of a 0.3 ha public park at the southeast corner of the subject lands off Poyntz Avenue and the dedication of 2.523 ha of valleylands to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”), on the western part of the subject lands.
6The Appellants reached settlements with the City and the TRCA in 2021. This left solely the issues raised by Ms. Kosoy to be adjudicated. On May 17, 2022, the Tribunal was informed by the Appellants and Ms. Kosoy that they had reached a settlement as well. On June 1, 2022, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing to address all of the proposed settlements. On August 12, 2022, the Parties filed final versions of the proposed instruments to the Tribunal on consent.
ISSUES
7On official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals under s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendments:
a) are consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”));
b) conform with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”)); and,
c) represent good planning.
In addition, for zoning by-law amendment appeals, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendment conforms with applicable official plans (in this case, the City’s Official Plan). The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and have regard to the decisions made by City Council regarding the matter and the information and materials that City Council considered when making its decisions (as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act).
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
8The Appellants produced two witnesses at the settlement hearing: David Huynh and Alun Lloyd. Mr. Huynh is a land use planner. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Lloyd is a transportation engineer. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence as a transportation engineer.
Planning Evidence and Submissions
9Mr. Huynh opined that the proposed instruments are consistent with the PPS. He said the proposed instruments would facilitate the efficient use of land and infrastructure and provide for compact form and development. He said there is public transit adjacent to the subject lands on Sheppard Avenue West and opportunities for active transportation, including bike lanes and pedestrian access to nearby amenities, trails, and parks.
10Mr. Huynh also opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Growth Plan. He stated that the proposed instruments would facilitate a mixed-use development that would contribute to a complete community, provide a diverse range of housing options, and provide for growth in a strategic growth area. He said the subject lands are located in an intensification corridor and he reiterated that they are close to public transit.
11Mr. Huynh opined that the proposed instruments conform with the City’s Official Plan. He stated that the proposed instruments would facilitate development that optimizes the use of an under-utilized site, would be well-served by municipal infrastructure, would be close to local amenities, would be transit-supportive, and would facilitate the use of active transportation. He stated that the proposed development represents appropriate intensification and provides for a diverse range of housing. He also said it maintains the existing level of rental housing on-site. He stated that the proposed built form would improve the organization of the subject lands, help integrate housing on the subject lands with the neighbourhood and street network, and be consistent with the streetwall along Sheppard Avenue West. He also stated that the proposed development would provide appropriate transition to nearby lower-rise areas and provide a new park for the neighbourhood.
12Mr. Huynh stated that he had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those related to the efficient use of municipal infrastructure, housing, and the appropriate location of growth and development. He said the proposed development would contribute well-designed built form that encourages a sense of place and provides for attractive and vibrant public spaces.
13Mr. Huynh summarized proposed pre-conditions for the proposed development as set out in the settlement agreements made between the Appellants and the City, the TRCA, and Ms. Kosoy. He stated that these include pre-conditions that: the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be in a form that is satisfactory to the City; approval of rental housing demolition is obtained; parkland obligations are secured; engineering issues are addressed; and requirements set out in agreements made between the Appellants and the City under s. 37 of the Planning Act are satisfied.
14Mr. Huynh opined that the proposed instruments and pre-conditions constitute good planning.
Transportation Evidence and Submissions
15Mr. Lloyd opined that the proposed instruments would facilitate road improvements that would be supported by the area street network. He said the proposed access configuration, loading, and parking supply provisions would address the needs of the proposed development and would not cause undue impacts on nearby properties. He opined that the proposed development would not impact the existing or planned operations and development of the Kosoy property. He said the planned adjacent driveways for access and egress from the proposed development and from the Kosoy property do not raise transportation concerns given the size of the existing and proposed developments, projected traffic levels, and the existing road network and infrastructure. He said having adjacent driveways close to one another can operate well and safely together, but that consolidated access to the two developments would also be an alternative option. Mr. Lloyd stated that the subject lands are appropriate for intensification given their location on Sheppard Avenue West, the availability of public transit and bike lanes in the area, the range of residential, recreational, retail, and institutional uses in the area, and the road connections there.
16The evidence of Mr. Huynh and Mr. Lloyd was adopted by the City and by Ms. Kosoy.
Submission of Final Proposed Instruments
17On August 12, 2022, the Parties filed the final proposed instruments on consent and informed the Tribunal that the above-noted pre-conditions had been satisfied or secured through holding provisions in the implementing Zoning By-law Amendments.
FINDINGS
18Based on the Appellants’ uncontradicted opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, conform with the City’s Official Plan, and constitute good planning. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act and the decisions made by City Council in this matter as well as the information and materials that City Council considered in making those decisions.
19The Tribunal has reviewed and approves the final proposed instruments.
ORDER
20The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed, in part, and that the City of Toronto Official Plan, as amended, is amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision, the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is amended in the manner as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order and Decision, and the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, is amended in the manner as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order and Decision.
21The Tribunal orders that, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order is effective on August 12, 2022.
22The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format, as may be necessary, and assign a number to these by-laws for record keeping purposes.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
MEMBER
“S. Mann”
S. MANN
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
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3