Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 16, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002998
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Centre Park Holdings Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit the development of four 3-storey residential buildings
Reference Number: 17 253027 NNY 27 SA
Property Address: 33, 37, 39, 41 & 43 Centre Avenue
Municipality: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002998
Legacy Case No.: MM180025
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002998
Legacy Lead Case No.: MM180025
OLT Case Name: Centre Park Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Centre Park Holdings Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of four 3-storey residential buildings
Reference Number: 20 232921 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address: 33, 37, 39, 41 & 43 Centre Avenue
Municipality: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002555
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002998
Heard: October 25, 2023 via Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Center Park Holdings Inc.
Max Laskin David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Adrienne deBracker Cameron McKeich
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. mason and S. Deboer ON october 25, 2023 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1Centre Park Holdings Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) submitted an application for Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) with the City of Toronto (“City”) on October 25, 2017 to rezone the properties municipally known as 33-43 Centre Avenue ("Subject Lands”) and permit the development of six single-detached dwellings fronting onto Centre Avenue and 10 single-detached dwellings fronting onto a new interior condominium road. The ZBA was appealed to the Tribunal in March 2018 (“Zoning Appeal”) based on the failure of the City to make a decision within the statutory timeline pursuant to Section 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
2Substantial discussions took place with City staff after the Zoning Appeal, leading to a revised form of development that required an official plan amendment application to be filed in December 2020 (“OPA”). The OPA was subsequently appealed to the Tribunal (“OPA Appeal”) due to the failure of the City to make a decision within the statutory timeframe pursuant to Section 22(7) of the Act (together with Zoning Appeal, “Appeals”).
3The Applicant/Appellant continued to engage in discussions with City staff that led to further revisions to the development concept. The final concept consists of two blocks of four-storey back-to-back townhouse units and two four-storey apartment blocks with an internal private condominium road and shared underground parking, as detailed in the architectural drawings of MAR Architects Inc. dated May 17, 2023 (Exhibit 4) (“Revised Development”). A resubmission of the Applications was filed on May 25, 2023, and on October 11, 2023, City Council endorsed a settlement of the Appeals based on the Revised Development (Exhibit 2, attachment K).
4The Parties subsequently advised the Tribunal that a confidential settlement with respect to the Revised Development had been reached and asked to convert the case management conference to a hearing to consider a settlement proposal. The Tribunal granted the request and the Panel convened on October 25, 2023, to hear the settlement proposal proffered by the Parties.
5The Panel issued an interim oral decision at the hearing event approving the OPA and ZBA in principle subject to specific conditions and this is a written memorandum of that decision.
CONTEXT
6The Subject Lands are located approximately 200 metres east of Yonge Street and 500 metres north of Cummer Avenue in the City of Toronto and are currently occupied by five detached houses that will be demolished to accommodate the Revised Development. Frontage is on Centre Avenue, and across the street to the north. To the east and south are detached houses. To the west is the Salvation Army North York Temple, an institutional use with surface parking.
7The Subject Lands are located within the Yonge Street corridor and are walking distance to existing bus transit service and connections to the TTC’s Yonge Subway Line 1. A planned, but unfunded, station at Cummer Avenue is proposed for the future substation extension of Line 1 into York Region. A planned and funded new subway station at Steeles Avenue is accessible through existing transit service from the Subject Lands.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
8The settlement proposal contemplates the redevelopment of the Subject Lands with four new buildings that include:
a) Two buildings of four-storey back-to-back townhouses fronting on Centre Avenue with rooftop amenity space and step backs at the upper floor (“Building A” and “Building B” respectively);
b) A four-storey apartment building fronting on Center Avenue with step-backs on the upper floor and rooftop amenity space (“Building C”);
c) A four-storey apartment building interior to the site with frontage on the internal private road, step-backs at the upper floor and rooftop amenity space (“Building D”);
d) A 6m wide driveway from Centre Avenue located between Building A and Building B that turns eastward internally entering the parking ramp and the one level of shared below grade parking of 143 stall and 100 bicycle spaces;
e) 146 units (1 bedroom: 53 units (36%); 2 bedroom: 29 units (20%); 3 bedroom: 64 units (44%)) with a total gross floor area of 12, 748 meters square located on a site area of 6, 505 meters square, with resulting floor space index of 1.96 times the lot area;
f) A 6 metre front yard set-back on Centre Avenue providing space for individual unit entrances at grade and landscaped public pedestrian streetscape; and
g) Private outdoor spaces and communal outdoor amenity spaces at a minimum ratio of 2.0 metres squared per unit.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
9When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform to A Place to Grow; Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, as amended (“Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Applications conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”). The Tribunal must be satisfied that, in consideration of the statutory requirements, the Applications represent good planning and are in the public interest.
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
10Without objection, the Tribunal qualified Robert Gibson, a registered Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. Mr. Gibson provided an affidavit sworn on October 20, 2023 (Exhibit 2) with related exhibits and visual evidence (Exhibit 3), in support of the Settlement Proposal and interim approval of the OPA and ZBA.
11Mr. Gibson provided evidence to the Tribunal that the Revised Development incorporates key changes from earlier development concepts that resolved the difference between the Parties:
a) Consolidation of a 5-building concept into the proposed 4 building concept with the townhouse front doors and the Building C entrance connected to Centre Avenue and the landscaped public realm enhancing integration and flow into the existing neighbourhood;
b) Increased front yard set back from 3 metres to 6 metres on Centre Avenue providing for enhanced public realm, increased landscape opportunities and a more appropriate reflection of the existing low density residential character and atmosphere;
c) Increased building height from 3 to 4 storeys with related step-back at the top floor to reduce the visual impact and massing from Centre Avenue;
d) An underground parking set-back from the property line that facilitates an increased landscape perimeter and, in turn, results in more privacy and “softer” blending of the site into the existing neighbouring low density residential uses;
e) A thoughtful and functional layout of the interplay between the interior private road and parking ramp, interior courtyard, drop-off parking and shared services area; and
f) Overall separation distances and buildings heights that are in keeping with the City design guidelines and policies in the Council-adopted Yonge Street North Secondary Plan.
12Mr. Gibson provided evidence that the Revised Development elegantly meets the City’s policies on infill housing in the Neighbourhoods designation in the OP. The unusual lot consolidation that creates the Subject Lands meets the special alternative development policies for infill development on lots that vary from the local pattern. The policies set out that a more flexible approach to development should be applied. Mr. Gibson provided evidence explaining how building height and massing, front yard setbacks from the public street, landscaping and intelligent site layout work to retain the stability and character of the residential neighbourhood. The same thoughtful examples also exemplify the policies in the “Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines” adopted by Council that provide direction for the back-to-back townhouse and apartment building built form.
13The witness provided evidence that the site-specific OPA provides for the built form in conformity with Neighbourhood policies under Section 2.3.1. Mr. Gibson highlighted the policy in Section 2.3.1.1 that development in Neighbourhoods should respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the area through the built form and public realm. Significant details in the Revised Development were highlighted that achieved this policy directive, including massing and scale of the buildings that fits the existing and planned neighbourhood context and considered location of entrances and framing of the streetscape on Centre Avenue. Changes to the design that are not readily obvious but that assist in delivering the policy objectives include setting back the underground parking garage from the property line. This modification enables increased width and depth of landscape buffering to support healthy growth of larger tree species with resulting benefits of enhanced privacy and shade.
14Mr. Gibson provided evidence that the Revised Development is further consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan through the implementation of core policy themes of complete communities providing active living within fully serviced settlement areas with existing and planned higher order transit through the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan. Furthermore, the Revised Development importantly adds a new form of housing stock with smaller units and different tenure to the otherwise largely single detached dwelling neighbourhood. The witness provided evidence that the mix of housing types in the Proposed Development, particularly the percentage of 3-bedroom units, the scale and massing, thoughtful relationship to the street-level public realm through landscaping and entrance locations also achieve the policy directions in the PPS and Growth Plan.
15Mr. Gibson opined that the Revised Development has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Act through the adequate and efficient use of existing infrastructure; orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the adequate provisioning of a full range of housing and the appropriate location of growth to support public transit and active transportation.
16Based on the extensive and detailed evidence provided, Mr. Gibson opined that the Revised Development has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and OP and is representative of good planning.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17Having considered the uncontested oral and Affidavit evidence of Mr. Gibson, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Revised Development is consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal finds that the settlement, as presented, conforms to the Growth Plan and the OP and constitutes good land use planning. In reaching this finding, the Tribunal has had regard for the matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Act and the decision of the City Council with respect to the Revised Development, as reflected by its approval of the proffered settlement.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 19 below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 and 2 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.
19The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation in writing from the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:
a) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment are in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;
b) The Owner has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services and Engineering and Construction Services matters contained in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated July 6, 2023 (Exhibit 5), as they relate to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
c) The Owner has submitted a satisfactory Transportation Impact Study, including a Transportation Demand Management Strategy, acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
d) The Owner has submitted to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services for review and acceptance, a revised Functional Servicing Report to determine whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development, and make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Constructions Services and enter into the appropriate agreement with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to support this development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
e) The Owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review as they relate to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; and
f) The Owner has withdrawn its appeal of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (OPA 615) (By-law 1016-2022) to the Ontario Land Tribunal within Ontario Land Tribunal Case OLT-22-004346.
20The Parties are directed to provide a written interim update to the Tribunal on the status of satisfaction of the above noted conditions on Thursday, July 25, 2024.
21If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the Tribunal’s review and approval; provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 19 above have been satisfied; and request the issuance of the Final Order, by Monday, October 27, 2025, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft instruments and request for issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
22The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument(s), the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
23The Panel Members will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final drafts of the instruments and the issuance of the Final Order.
“A. Mason”
A. MASON
MEMBER
“S. deBoer”
S. DEBOER
MEMBER
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.
Draft Official Plan Amendment (XXX XX, 202X)
Authority: North York Community Council Item [#],
as adopted by City of Toronto Council on [date]
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW No. XXX-20XX
To adopt Amendment No. XXX to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally as 33, 37, 39, 41 & 43 Centre Avenue
Whereas authority is given to Council under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and
Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has
held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;
The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:
The text and map attached hereto are adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto.
This is Official Plan Amendment No. XXX.
ENACTED AND PASSED this ____ day of _________, 20XX.
SCHEDULE ‘A’
- Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policies, is amended by adding Site and Area Specific Policy No. XXX for the lands known municipally as 33, 37, 39, 41 & 43 Centre Avenue, as follows:
XXX. 33, 37, 39, 41 & 43 Centre Avenue
A maximum of 146 units in 4 multiple-unit buildings with a total maximum Floor Space Index of 2.0 times the area of the lot is permitted.
Authority: North York Community Council Item [-], as adopted by City of Toronto Council on ~, 2023
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW ###-2023
To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2023 as 33, 37, 39, 41 and 43 Centre Avenue.
Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and
Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act; and
The Council of the City of Toronto enacts:
The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.
The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions unless otherwise amended.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the zone label on the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.1 respecting the lands outlined by heavy black lines from a zone label of RD (f15.0; a550) (x871) to a zone label of RM (a6500; u146; d2.0) (X###) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the Height Overlay Map in Section 995.20 for the lands subject to this By-law, from a height and storey label of HT 10.0; ST 2, to a height and storey label of HT 13.4, ST 4, as shown on Diagram 3 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569 -2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the Lot Coverage Overlay Map in Section 995.30 for the lands subject to this By-law, from a lot coverage label of 30 to a lot coverage label of 41 as shown on Diagram 4 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.6.## Exception Number ### so that it reads:
(###) Exception RM (###)
The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site-Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:
Site Specific Provisions:
On 33, 37, 39, 41 and 42 Centre Avenue, if the requirements of By-law ###-2023 are complied with, a building or structure may be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (8) to (19) below:
Despite Regulation 800.50(240), established grade is defined as the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 190.25 metres;
Despite Regulation 10.80.30., the lot is defined as the lands outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.
Despite Regulation 10.80.40, no building or structure may be located other than wholly within the area delineated by the building setback lines shown on Diagram 5.
Despite Regulation 10.5.50.10, at least 2,000 square metres of soft landscaping must be provided;
A minimum of 292 square metres of outdoor amenity space must be provided.
Despite Regulation 10.5.100.1(5), driveway access to the principal pedestrian entrance to buildings is not required.
Despite Regulation 10.80.40.10, the permitted maximum height of a building or structure is the number in metres following the letters "HT" as shown on Diagram 5 of By-law ###-2023.
Despite Regulation 10.80.40.10, the permitted maximum number of storeys in a building is the number following the letters "ST" as shown on Diagram 5 of By-law ###-2023.
A minimum of 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units on the lot must contain a minimum of two bedrooms and a minimum of 40 percent of the total number of dwelling units must contain a minimum of three bedrooms.
A temporary sales presentation centre for the purpose of the sale of the first dwelling units to be erected on the lot may be permitted on the lot, and none of the other provisions of this By-law apply to such use.
Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:
None Apply
- Despite any severance, partition or division of the lands, the provisions of this By-law shall apply as if no severance, partition or division occurred.
Enacted and passed on [month day, year].