Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 16, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003642

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

Applicant/Appellant: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit two, 21-storey towers and a 9-storey midrise building Reference Number: 19 244758 NNY 16 OZ Property Address: 801 York Mills Rd. and 1855 Leslie Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003642 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003642 OLT Case Name: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation v. Toronto (City)

Heard: September 2, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Ltd (“Owner” / “Appellant”)	D. Baker, J. Butcher*
City of Toronto (“City”)	R. Ivanov
York Mills Leslie Residents Inc.	C. Harris, S. Spitz
Hastad Property Management Services Inc.	R. Leck
E. Kessler	I. Flett

DECISION DELIVERED BY G. BURTON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first CMC held in Appeal OLT-22-003642, in which the owner of 801 York Mills Road and 1855 Leslie Street in the City of Toronto appealed the failure of the City of Toronto to make a decision on its submissions to amend the applicable Zoning By-laws within the statutory time frame. The owner proposes a 21-storey tower and a 9-storey midrise building on the property. The site is approximately 1.12 hectares, located in the southeast quadrant of York Mills Road and Leslie Street, not including the corner property there.

2Two additional persons requested Party Status in the appeal. Hastad Property Management Services Inc. is an adjacent commercial property owner. Ms. Baker’s concern was to clarify the technical issues it had raised, such as dewatering, and the question of witnesses. If these are limited to its property alone, she would accept Party status.

3Respecting the addition of Ms. Kessler as a Party, Ms. Baker did not object in principle, but it is imperative, she pointed out, that her evidence does not duplicate that of the other Parties. Five issues had been added by Mr. Flett just the day before the CMC. The Tribunal grants her Party status on the condition that her issues be reformulated and narrowed, and not duplicating those of the City, and the witnesses to be called be identified well in advance of the Hearing.

4The added Parties are directed to discuss with the City and the proponent further clarification of their issues prior to the next CMC on December 8, 2022. There will be no further notice of this CMC. Witnesses proposed to be called at the Hearing should be identified by this time. A Procedural Order will be finalized at this CMC.

5There were many requests for Participant status. Six were granted, having submitted their concerns in their statements. These were Earl Haslett, Stephen Nitikman, Branko Jaksic, Thomas Yu, Fred Howe of WillowWood School, and Tyson Chu. All attended the CMC, along with an additional seventeen persons.

6The Parties and Participants are found in Attachment 1. The Issues List to date is Attachment 2, subject to further refinement at the next CMC. The Order of Evidence is as follows:

First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation
City of Toronto
Hasted Property Management Services Inc.
York Mills Leslie Residents Inc.
Ellen Kessler
First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation (in reply)

7Mr. Harris expressed an objection that some residents had not received notice of the CMC. He was assured that the proponent followed the direction of the City for notice, as set out in the affidavit of Marie Wakefield (Exhibit 1).

CMC AND HEARING DATES

8The Tribunal directs that a second CMC will be held by video hearing commencing on December 8, 2022 at 10 a.m.

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885

Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 299-1889

Access code: 344-779-885

9Furthermore, the Tribunal directs that a hearing will be held by video hearing commencing on July 31, 2023 to August 18, 2023, at 10 a.m., excepting Civic Holiday.

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861

Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 455-1389

Access code: 765-631-861

10Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.

11Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available at: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

12Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line provided above.

13Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

14This is the order of the Tribunal.

“G. Burton”

G. BURTON VICE-CHAIR

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.

ATTACHMENT 1: PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Appellant/Party	Counsel	Contact
First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation	Denise Baker	WeirFoulds LLP Suite 10, 1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, ON L6J 0B2 Phone: 416-947-5090 dbaker@weirfoulds.com
City of Toronto	Roman Ivanov	City of Toronto Metro Hall 55 John Street Toronto ON M5V 3C6 Phone: 416-392-4807 roman.ivanov@toronto.ca
Hastad Property Management Services Inc.	Robert Leck	Stiver Vale 195 Main Street South Newmarket, ON L3Y 3Y9 Phone: 905-895-4571 x 224 raleck@stivervale.com
York Mills Leslie Residents Inc.	Conner Harris	Rayman Harris LLP 250 The Esplanade, Suite 202 Toronto, ON M5A 1J2 Phone: 416-597-5422 conner@rbllp.com
Ellen Kessler	Ian Flett	Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation 160 John Street, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5C 1E5 Phone: 416 939 6396 Email: iflett@gillespielaw.ca

Participant	Contact
Branko Jaksic	416-449-0142 bjaksic@rogers.com
Earl Haslett	437-580-3011 33 Hurlingham Crescent Eahaslett@gmail.com
Stephen Nitikman	416-576-1705 Phaselock2000@gmail.com
Thomas Yu	416-828-3781 projectbp@hotmail.com
Tyson Chu	416-258-7912 Tysonmit1951@gmail.com
WillowWood School Fred Howe	416-444-7644 55 Scarsdale Road Toronto, ON M3B 2R3 fredhowe@willowwoodschool.ca

ATTACHMENT 2: ISSUES LIST

Note: the identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which the issues are appropriate, within the jurisdiction of the OLT, or relevant to the determination at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

CITY OF TORONTO ISSUES LIST

Planning Act

Does the proposed development and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular Subsections 2(h) and 2(r)?

City of Toronto Official Plan

Does the proposed development conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1), the Public Realm (3.1.1), Built Form (3.1.2), Built Form – Building Types (3.1.3), Housing (3.2.1), Mixed Use Areas (4.5) and Implementation (5)?

Guidelines

Does the proposed development appropriately respond to and meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Buildings Guidelines?
Does the proposed development appropriately respond to, and satisfy the intent of, the residential unit size guidelines of Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines (2020)?

Built Form

Is the massing of the proposed towers and associated base appropriate?
Are the floor plates of the two towers in the proposed development of appropriate scale?
Does the development provide appropriate transition to low-rise Neighbourhoods to the south?
Is the massing of the proposed development appropriate in terms of its impact on access to sunlight, overlook, privacy, wind effects, and shadow?
Is the proposed transition between the townhouse component of the proposed development and the lands municipally know as 799 York Mills Road appropriate?

Streetscape & Public Realm

Is the proposed development's relationship with the public realm and resulting streetscape appropriate?
Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm, streetscaping and contributions to public space?

Amenity Space

Is the location and design of the proposed amenity space appropriate?

Shadow Impacts

Are the shadow impacts of the proposed development on York Mills Road public realm appropriate?

Wind Impacts

Does the proposed development provide comfortable wind conditions and limit wind impacts on the public realm, along the York Mills Road public realm, particularly at the northwest corner of the west tower?

Public Interest and Good Planning

Are the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Conditions on any Approval

In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The Zoning By-law Amendment has been prepared in a content and form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b. The City has advised that any building envelope changes to address the findings of the wind tunnel study have been made to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division;

c. The City has confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity from the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the determination of whether holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment;

d. The owner has entered into one or more agreements to secure such matters as may be required to support the development, including but not limited to parkland conveyances and pedestrian and vehicular access easements for public use, with such agreement(s) to be registered on title to the lands, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

e. The owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Engineering and Construction Services as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and construction Services;

f. The owner has provided vehicle and bicycle parking and loading spaces in accordance with accordance with the requirements of Zoning By-law 569-2013 to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services; and

g. The owner has submitted a Transportation Demand Management Plan and secured such matters arising from the accepted Travel Demand Management Pan, as may be required, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

Hastad Property Management Services Inc.

Is the height and density appropriate?
Are the proposed site specific Zoning Setbacks appropriate and do they respect the existing and proposed land uses?
Does the proposed development have any adverse impacts on the surrounding existing development with respect to shadowing?
Does the proposed development provide adequate and convenient visitor and commercial parking on site?
Does the proposed development have any adverse impacts on the surrounding existing development with respect to privacy and light.
Does the proposed development have any adverse impacts on the surrounding existing development with respect to traffic?
Does the proposed development allow for access to the private roadway within the development, from the 799 lands?
Is the proposed width of the proposed private, internal roadway appropriate and adequate for the type and level of traffic using it?
Does the proposed development provide an adequate and appropriate area for the manoeuvring of trucks accessing proposed loading and garbage areas, that does not impede traffic flows?
Is the proposed development designed to provide Emergency Access and Public Safety regarding Issue No. 9 above?
Does the proposed development have any adverse impacts on the surrounding existing development with respect to vibration damage during construction?
Does the proposed development have any adverse impacts on the surrounding existing development with respect to dewatering during and after construction?
Does the proposed development being accommodated within the existing servicing infrastructure, have any impacts on the existing and future servicing of the existing and future surrounding land uses?

York Mills Leslie Residents Inc. (“YMLRI”)

General

Do the applications and proposed development (including but not limited to: urban design and built form; proposed heights and densities), or any proposed modifications thereto, represent good planning?
Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications (including but not limited to: built form and urban design; proposed heights and densities) compatible with the existing neighbourhood and City of Toronto guidelines?

Urban Design and Built Form

Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, and 3.3?
Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, appropriate for and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood?
Are the setbacks from neighbouring properties as proposed in the applications appropriate and sufficient?
Are the impacts of shadowing on adjacent properties excessive?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, adequately account for and protect the privacy of neighbouring properties?
Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, meet the City of Toronto’s angular plane requirements?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, meet the general intent of the City of Toronto’s Urban Design Guidelines, including but not limited to: a. Tall Buildings Urban Design Guidelines, Performance Standards for Mid-Rise Buildings, and/or Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines (as the case may be) b. Complete Streets Guidelines and the Streetscape Manual c. Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces (POPS) Urban Design Guidelines d. Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines; and e. Growing Up Urban Design Guidelines

Traffic Management and Parking

Are the traffic management studies carried out in support of the applications complete and appropriate?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to them, include adequate traffic management measures considering the scale of the proposed development?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to them, include adequate parking?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to policies 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4?
Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policy 1.6.7?

Heights and Densities

Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, 4.5, and 4.6?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to policies 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5?
Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, and 1.4?

Public Realm, Community Services and Facilities

Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, include adequate public realm resources and community services and facilities?
Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 2.3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to policies 2.2.1.4, 3.2.8 and 4.2.5?
Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.5, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, and 1.6.5?

Natural Heritage

Has preservation of mature trees and an appropriate tree canopy been adequately considered?
Do the applications, or any modifications to the applications, conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 2.3.2, 3.4, and 4.3?
Do the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), including but not limited to 4.2.2, 4.2.9, and 4.2.10?
Are the applications, or any proposed modifications to the applications, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including but not limited to policies 1.8 and 2.1?