Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 25, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001367

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.

Appellant: Firmland (Kingston Road) Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To construct a 12 storey, 168 unit development

Reference Number: 19 256358 ESC 25 SA

Property Address: 4694 - 4696 Kingston Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001367

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001736

OLT Case Name: Firmland (Kingston Road) Inc. v. Toronto (City.)

Heard: November 28, 2022 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Firmland (Kingston Road) Inc. ("Appellant")

Counsel S. Tomasella

Parties City of Toronto ("City")

Counsel A. deBacker

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act ("City Act"), arising from the City’s failure to decide, within statutory timeframes, with respect to a Site Plan application ("SPA"). The subject property is municipally known as 4694-4696 Kingston Road, in the City (formerly, Scarborough) ("subject property").

2A Case Management Conference ("CMC") was heard on this matter on March 25, 2022. The Appellant had previously had, in addition to the current matter, an appeal under the Planning Act (the "Act"), s. 45(12) arising from the refusal of the City’s Committee of Adjustment ("CoA) refusal of the Appellant’s Minor Variance Application ("MV Application").

3During the previous CMC, the City confirmed that they were not in opposition to the MV Application and had attended in support of the conditions requested by City staff. Also at this CMC, the Tribunal ordered that the SPA approval be adjourned sine die.

4The MV Application Appeal proceeded by way of written Hearing. In the June 2, 2022 Decision, the Tribunal approved the MV Application, subject to agreed-upon conditions.

5The Parties requested of the Tribunal that this CMC be converted to a settlement Hearing to resolve the SPA matter.

6Since the MV Application, the Appellant has made two technical SPA Approval resubmissions, on July 22, 2022 and October 3, 2022, in order to resolve outstanding SPA Approval issues.

7Following further discussions between the Appellant’s consultants and the City, on November 21, 2022 the City issued a draft Notice of Approval Conditions ("NOAC"). The NOAC identifies the following:

a. the drawings to be secured through a/the Site Plan Agreement;

b. a number of pre-approval conditions to be satisfied prior to entering into a Site Plan Agreement; and

c. a number of post-approval conditions to be secured through a/the Site plan agreement.

8The NOAC cites 48 conditions, including 16 pre-approval and 32 post-approval conditions from the City as well as outside agencies and specific conditions relating to the particular elements of the SPA.

9At the time of the Hearing, Parties informed the Tribunal that a number of conditions within the NOAC were still in the process of being finalized by the City Solicitor in response to comments provided by the Appellant. Following the Hearing, the Tribunal received a finalized version of the NOAC.

SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

Subject Property

10The subject property is designated Mixed Use Areas in the City of Toronto Official Plan ("OP"). It is located on the north side of Kingston Road, west of Highland Creek and has a total area of approximately 4,456 square metres ("m²"). The lot is irregular in shape, with a frontage of 60.48 metres ("m") along Kingston Road and a maximum depth of 79.18 m.

11The subject property is currently occupied by the Knights Inn Motel, a "T"-shaped four-storey (4-storey) building oriented towards Kingston that is surrounded by surface parking.

12The subject property includes a portion of the Highland Creek ravine and natural heritage system, and, accordingly, falls within the Toronto Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA") regulation limit. The topography of the subject property is generally flat, until the ravine limit, where it slopes dramatically towards the ravine.

13The subject property is designated Mixed Use Areas in the City of Toronto Official Plan ("OP") and is located along an Avenue (Kingston Road Avenue). This Avenue has been the subject of development and redevelopment activity in recent years, largely in the form of higher density mixed use and residential development, primarily in mid-rise forms.

Immediate Surroundings

14To the immediate east of the subject property is the Toronto Mahavihara, a Buddhist temple occupying two single-storey homes at 4698 Kingston Road. Past the temple is Colonel Danforth Park, forming part of the Highland Creek ravine. Further east of the ravine are properties subject to recently adopted Official Plan Amendment and rezoning applications to amend the OP and applicable zoning by-laws in order to permit two 8-storey residential buildings.

15To the immediate south of the subject property across Kingston Road are four 3½ storey townhouse blocks arranged along both street frontages in a triangular shape with 27 units and surface parking internal to the site. Further south there are low-rise residential neighborhoods generally consisting of detached houses, one or two storeys in height.

16To the immediate west of the subject property is a triangular-shaped lot that is occupied by a single-storey auto-shop building and surrounded by surface parking used for vehicular sales and outdoor storage. Further west is the Lido Motel, consisting of two buildings of one and two storeys in height, as well as a condominium community of 2-storey detached townhouse dwellings serviced by a private street network.

17To the immediate north of the subject property is the Highland Creek Ravine and natural heritage system.

Transportation

18The subject property is well connected to the surrounding road network. Kingston Road is classified as Major Arterial, with a right-of-way width of between 53 m to 58 m in front of the subject property.

19The subject property is served by public transit, with a number of surface transit routes located within walking distance and the closest bus stop 50 m south of the subject property.

20The nearest high order transit station is the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus GO Bus, located approximately 1.2 kilometers northwest of the subject property.

SETTLEMENT HEARING

21The Parties jointly relied on the written evidence of Mike Dror, a Registered Professional Planner who was previously qualified to provide expert evidence in this matter.

22The following items were entered into evidence as Exhibits for this matter:

Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Mike Dror
Exhibit 2 – Site Plan Drawings
Exhibit 3 – Draft Notice of Approval Conditions

23The Tribunal relied upon the Affidavit of Mike Dror in considering its decision. In preparing the affidavit, Mr. Dror conducted a review of the current land use planning policy framework applicable to the subject property, which includes the Planning Act ("Act"), Provincial Policy Statement 2020 ("PPS"), A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Holden Horseshoe 2020 ("Growth Plan"), the OP, West Hill Community Zoning By-Law ("ZBL 10327") as well as the City-wide Zoning By-law ("ZBL 569-2013"). Mr. Dror also reviewed all relevant materials related to the applications, including staff reports, departmental and agency circulation comments and comments from members of the public on the applications.

PLANNING OPINION

24Mr. Dror opined that the Site Plan and proposed conditions of Site Plan Approval contained in the draft NOAC appropriately implement the development and satisfy all applicable legislative tests, including s. 114(5) and (11) of the City Act.

25Mr. Dror is of the opinion that the Site Plan addresses the matters of s. 114(5) of the City Act because:

a. the site plan shows the location of the buildings and all facilities, structures and works, and has regards for accessibility for persons with disabilities;

b. the site plan and building elevations show the building and cross-section views, the massing and conceptual design of the proposed building, and its relationship to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior public areas;

c. the site plan illustrates that interior walkways are connected to exterior walkways and ultimately connect to streets;

d. the site plan and building elevations illustrate the exterior appearance of the proposed building;

e. the landscape plan illustrates sustainable design elements on the adjoining street (Kingston Road), including landscaping, paving materials, street furniture, and curb ramps; and

f. the site plan has regard for accessibility for persons with disabilities.

26Mr. Dror opined that the proposed Conditions of Site Plan Approval contained in the draft NOAC appropriately address matters in s. 114(11) of the City Act for the following reasons:

a. the site plan includes facilities to provide access to and from the land, including road improvements, driveways, access ramps, curbing and traffic direction signs;

b. the site plan locates new off-street vehicular loading and parking facilities within the ground floor at the rear of the building and below grade;

c. the site plan includes a series of new walkways – including the surfacing thereof – connecting the building, including entrances to the main lobby, integrated townhouses and office use to the abutting municipal sidewalk;

d. the site plan includes facilities designed to have regard for accessibility for persons with disabilities;

e. the site plan includes fences and various landscaping elements for both the subject property and the protection of adjoining lands, including the ravine lands at the north end of the subject property;

f. the site plan provides for central storage of garbage and other waste material, and for a collection area designed to City standards;

g. the site plan includes stormwater management and servicing facilities to address storm, surface and wastewater;

h. the site plan will include adequate lighting as required by the conditions of site plan approval;

i. the site plan agreement includes conditions that will ensure the building is maintained to the satisfaction of the City; and

j. approval requires the Appellant to enter into a Site Plan Agreement.

27Mr. Dror went on to opine that the Site Plan and proposed conditions in the NOAC are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan and to the OP as well as to the applicable Zoning By-Law.

DISPOSITION

28The Tribunal, having reviewed the affidavit and uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Dror, has been persuaded by the evidence and finds that the proposed settlement and Site Plan Approval and conditions within the updated NOAC satisfy all statutory tests.

ORDER

29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Site Plan is approved in principle, in substantial accordance with the plans attached as Schedule 1, and with Final Order withheld until the Owner has satisfied all pre-approval conditions of the Notice of Approval Conditions attached as Schedule 2, including the execution and registration of a Site Plan Agreement with the City.

"S. Mann"

S. MANN MEMBER