Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 21, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003932

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

Applicant/Appellant: 221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a three building, 892 unit development

Reference Number: 21 151444 STE 09 OZ

Property Address: 221-227 Sterling Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003932

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003932

OLT Case Name: 221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City.)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit a three building, 892 unit development

Reference Number: 21 151438 STE 09 SB

Property Address: 221-227 Sterling Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003933

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003932

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.

Subject: Ontario Heritage Act

Description: To Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act

Reference Number: DBL 1130-2022

Property Address: 221-227 Sterling Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-004437

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003932

Heard: October 17, 2023 by Video Hearing

Parties and Counsel/Representative*

221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) Daniel Artenosi Natalie Ast Rowan Barron (Student at law)*

Lamb Sterling Corp. Naomi Mares Eileen Costello (in absentia)

Toronto (“City”) Laura Bissett Derin Abimbola

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DOUGLAS COLBOURNE AND ERIC S. CROWE ON OCTOBER 17, 2023, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Settlement hearing on appeals filed by 221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) against the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to make a decision in relation to a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision application concerning the properties of 221, 225 and 227 Sterling Road (“Subject Site”).

2The purpose and effect of the original ZBLA application was to amend the Zoning By-law to demolish the existing industrial, factory-style building at 221, 225 and 227 Sterling Road for the redevelopment of the Subject Site with three residential buildings with heights of 20, 25 and 29-storeys that would sit atop two residential podiums. This ZBLA would allow for increased height and density on the Subject Site. The applications propose 56,482 square metres (“m²”) of residential Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) and 892 residential units, including 33 rental replacement units and 23 live-work units. The Draft Plan of Subdivision application proposes to subdivide the Site for a proposed portion of a new public road and new public park.

3A Revised Proposal is comprised of a mix of uses including residential and dedicated community uses, with an overall GFA of 55,177.5 m² resulting in a density of 5.05. Tower A and B have been reduced in height to 27 storeys and 24 storeys, while Tower C has increased in height to 21 storeys. The Tower sits atop a four-storey podium, of which, a portion of the south podium building incorporates portions of the existing Heritage façades through a combination of in situ retention and reconstruction. The development will contain a total of 870 units, including 58 rental replacement units along with a new public road and new public park.

4As part of the Revised Proposal, approximately 16.5 m of the western edge of the Subject Site is proposed to be dedicated to facilitating the construction of a new public road. The proposed dedication would connect Ruttan Street south, to Sterling Road at the southwest corner of the Subject Site, thereby normalizing and improving vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the Site.

5As part of the Original Proposal, a future parkland dedication of 987 m² was proposed at the southwest corner of the Subject Site, fronting onto Sterling Road. This represented the required parkland dedication pursuant to the Planning Act (“Act”). The Proposal will include a new onsite park, of 945.9 m², representing 10% of the Subject Site’s net area, based on an ultimate road condition as described above.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

6221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc., Lamb Sterling Corp. and the City (all collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to a comprehensive resolution of the appeals, and wish to reflect their agreement, and to place the Applicant’s proposed Settlement Offer dated on April 26, 2023, which was adopted by City Council resolution dated on June 2, 2023, herein before the Tribunal for approval.

7On June 2, 2023, counsel for the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal and Parties to the appeals to advise that the Heritage appeal was being withdrawn. The Tribunal confirmed this withdrawal by letter on June 23, 2023, and the Heritage Designation By-law No. 1130-2022 is now in full force and effect.

8The Parties request that the Tribunal should allow the appeal of the ZBLA, in part, and approve the ZBLA attached as Schedule 1, but withhold the issuance of the final Order until the Tribunal is advised by the City and the Applicant, that certain preconditions have been satisfied which are appended as Schedule 2. The Parties request that the Draft Plan of Subdivision appeal be adjourned.

WITNESSES

9Evidence in support of the proposed applications was provided by David Huynh a land use planner. Mr. Huynh was qualified to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence.

10The Tribunal received and marked the following documents as Exhibits:

Exhibit 1: Book of Documents

Exhibit 2: Visual Evidence Book

Exhibit 3: Photo Book

Exhibit 4: Architectural Plans

Exhibit 5: Ultimate Road Condition Plan

Exhibit 6: Interim Road Condition Plan

Exhibit 7: Sun/Shadow Study

Exhibit 8: Park Concept Plan

Exhibit 9: List of Pre-Conditions

Exhibit 10: South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association Participant Statement

Exhibit 11: TSCC2174 Participant Statement

Exhibit 12: Witness Statement of David Huynh

SUBJECT SITE CONTEXT

11The Subject Site is located south of Bloor Street West off Ruttan Street, and is municipally known as 221, 225 and 227 Sterling Road.

12The Subject Site is generally rectangular in shape, and has a frontage of approximately 60 metres (“m”) along Ruttan Street and Merchant Lane to the north and an overall depth of approximately 142 m. The Site has a secondary public road frontage at the southwest former of the Site totaling 39 m along Sterling Road. The south extent of the property abuts a private lane which services 213 Sterling Road but is also utilized by 221 Sterling Road to access a rear lane way to the east.

13The Subject Site is accessed via a private driveway that extends south from the Ruttan Street cul-de-sac to Sterling Road, with surface parking along either side of the driveway; as well as a rear lane running south from the eastern extent of Merchant Lane along the eastern property line. In terms of topography, the Subject Site is generally flat with a gentle slope of approximately 1 m from north to south.

14The Subject Site is occupied by the existing two-storey former industrial building which has since been converted to accommodate residential uses. In terms of setbacks, the building is setback 13 m to the west along the frontage of 225 Sterling Road. Along the south property line, the building is setback 0.28 m, while the east lot line has a minimum setback of 4.2 m. Finally, the building is setback 0 m from the north lot line.

PLANNING ACT SECTION 2

15Mr. Huynh’s outlined s. 2 of the Act which requires decision makers, in carrying out their responsibilities under the Act, to have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest. In Mr. Huynh’s opinion, the proposed development has appropriate regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest, in particular:

a) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

b) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities

c) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

d) The appropriate location of growth and development;

e) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be orientated to pedestrians; and

f) The promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.

PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (2020)

16Mr. Huynh outlined the various provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”). He advised that the management and direction of land use is to achieve efficient development patterns, resilient development and land use patterns. The Proposal is consistent with the PPS in regard to access to local and regional transit services.

17In Mr. Huynh’s opinion, the proposed development is consistent with the PPS, and in particular, the policies relating to residential intensification, and the efficient use of land and infrastructure.

GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE

18Mr. Huynh advised in accordance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), that the Subject Site is located within a “strategic growth area” and falls within the definition of a “major transit station area” along a “priority transit corridor” given its location amongst numerous public transportation options. In this respect, the Subject Site is located in close proximity to two subway stations (Lansdowne and Dundas West), existing and planned GO-RER stations (Bloor GO and the future Bloor-Lansdowne GO) and Union Pearson Express station.

19In regard to “strategic growth area”, Mr. Huynh highlighted s. 4.3 of the Planning Rationale, where the Subject Site is part of a “strategic growth area” pursuant to the Growth Plan (i.e., a focus for accommodating intensification and higher-density mixed uses in a more compact built form). Strategic growth areas:

Include urban growth centres, major transit station areas, and other major opportunities that may include infill, redevelopment, brownfield sites, the expansion or conversion of existing buildings, or greyfields. Lands along major roads, arterials, or other areas with existing or planned frequent transit service may also be identified as “strategic growth areas”.

20In Mr. Huynh’s opinion, the proposed development, as reflected in the revised plans, conforms with the Growth Plan. In particular, the policies that seek to optimize the use of land and infrastructure, and to encourage growth and intensification in “strategic growth areas” and “major transit station areas”.

CITY OFFICIAL PLAN

21The Subject Site is located approximately 70 m south of Bloor Street West, which is identified as an Avenue on Map 2 (Urban Structure Plan) of the City Official Plan (“City OP”), which the mixed-use Avenues will emphasize residential growth.

22Mr. Huynh outlined the various policies of the City OP. He advised that the Subject Site is designated as ‘Apartment Neighbourhoods’. Apartment Neighbourhoods are made up of Apartment buildings and parks, local institutions, cultural and recreational facilities and small-scale retail, service and office uses that serve the needs of area residents. All land uses permitted in the Neighbourhoods designation are also permitted in the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation.

23In Mr. Huynh’s opinion, the proposed development conforms with the in-force City OP.

CITY COMPREHENSIVE ZONING-BY LAW No. 569-2013

24Mr. Huynh advised that the proposed ZBLA is seeking to rezone the Site from the existing Residential ‘R Zone’ to the Resident Apartment ‘RA Zone’. The proposed RA zone aligns with the underlying City OP land use designation of Apartment Neighbourhoods and therefore, would prescribe the Site a more conducive parent zone. Furthermore, the Draft ZBLA would implement Site specific provisions regarding an increase in building heights, setbacks, density, residential amenity space, vehicular parking and landscaping provisions, among others. The proposed amendments are necessary to accommodate the Proposal as contemplated in Schedule 1 which is attached.

25In Mr. Huynh’s opinion, the Draft ZBLA is appropriate, and should be approved. In keeping with conventional practice, one of the proposed preconditions to be satisfied prior to the Tribunal’s final Order issuing, is that the City and the Applicant file the final form of ZBLA. This will ensure that the appropriate City Staff have completed a technical review of the Draft ZBLA.

SUMMARY

26In Mr. Huynh’s opinion, the Revised Proposal, and the proposed implementing ZBLA, have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, they are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, they conform with the City OP, they represent good land use planning, are in the public interest, and should be approved.

27Mr. Huynh advised from an intensification perspective, and a residential intensification perspective, that the Subject Site is supportive of, and implements numerous policy directions articulated in the PPS, the Growth Plan and the City OP, all of which promote intensification on Sites which are well served by Municipal infrastructure, and particularly, higher-order public transit.

FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

28In the absence of any planning evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds and accepts the land use planning evidence and expert opinion provided by Mr. Huynh that that the proposed ZBLA conforms with the applicable Municipal Plans and, correspondingly, satisfies all of the criteria of the Act, and otherwise represents good planning and is in the public interest.

29The Proposal has considered the Participant Statements and their concerns including the compliance of pet friendly guidelines. Mr. Huynh acknowledged the concerns of the Heritage designation and advised that the Proposal is consistent with the polices of the City OP, and the Applicant entered into process and adhered to and respected the guidelines.

30Mr. Huynh testified that rental replacement was a concern from the Participants and advised there are preconditions set out which will be required to be satisfied before final zoning is issued. In his opinion, this process is not before the Tribunal however, what is, is the Proposal required to get approval from the City for it to be satisfied for the tenants to be secure before the final zoning Order. Mr. Huynh acknowledged that some units are unique which have evolved through Site and building retro fitting units and enhancements by the owners and various tenants over time. However, some units are in non-compliance from the Ontario Building Code (“OBC”) requirements, and there is consideration in conforming to the OBC.

31Mr. Huynh testified there were concerns from the Participants around land use planning, however, in this Proposal, there is a misconception that the Subject Site is designated neighbourhoods, but it is designated Apartment neighbourhoods. Mr. Huynh advised the shadow setbacks have been considered, and now noted affordable housing in an inclusionary zoning, however, is not yet enforced and still under review by the City. Mr. Huynh acknowledged affordable housing is not provided on this Subject Site, however this Site is allowing for other benefits.

32Mr. Huynh highlighted the Bloor Street Study, and advised that this Proposal tries and satisfies some community space, new road, new park and much needed housing overall. In Mr. Huynh’s opinion, on balance, it is comparable balance and good planning is achieved.

33Mr. Huynh advised that the parking was a concern. However, the parking being proposed, meets the minimum standards for resident and visitor parking from the direction of the City parking standards. Mr. Huynh also noted this Subject Site is in the vicinity of three high order transit stations.

34Mr. Huynh testified some comments referring to the construction related site. Mr. Huynh found that, remediation, structural integrity, and access to lands during construction, are all details that will be ultimately secured through the Site Plan and structure agreement plan. The where and when questions and concerns along with any mitigation measure for noise odour and debris and remediation of the Subject Site will all be identified at the Site Plan application stage.

35Mr. Huynh advised that transportation and wind conditions were reviewed through City staff and mitigation measures were implemented. Privacy and overlook were reviewed, specifically, the townhouses to the north which provides for more separation. The shifting of the Tower away now allows for more massing on the ground.

36Finally, with respect regarding the concerns of protecting private space within the townhouses, Mr. Huynh advised that there will be private amenities and pets have access to a public park. Waste and garbage area will be screened with one access point.

37The Tribunal notes the numerous comprehensive studies and plans that have been completed for this Proposal namely the; Regional Transportation Study, Architectural Plans, Ultimate Road Condition Plan, Interim Road Condition Plan, Sun/Shadow Study, and Park Concept Plan.

38The Tribunal acknowledges the cooperation between the Parties to reach a Settlement.

ORDER

39THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part, amendment to the City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 as amended, is approved in principle (appended as Schedule 1), and will withhold the issuance of its final Order until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the Parties that the following preconditions, as set out in Exhibit 9, are satisfied:

A. The final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Toronto East York District and the City Solicitor, in consultation with other appropriate divisions, and that they provide for, among other matters:

i. Space within the development for installation and maintenance and access holes and sampling ports on the private side, for both storm and sanitary service connections;

ii. A minimum of 10% of all units on the lands at 221, 225 and 227 Sterling Road as three-bedroom units and a minimum of 15% of all units on the lands at 221, 225 and 227 Sterling Road as two-bedroom units;

iii. Maximum Tower heights of 27 storeys (north tower), 24 storeys (centre tower) and 21 storeys (south tower), inclusive/exclusive of mechanical penthouses with a minimum separation distance between Towers of 25 metres; and,

iv. Any mitigation measures that will have bearing on the approved building envelope or performance standards, arising from any of the accepted plans and studies listed in (C) below;

B. City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition application No. 21 151447 STE 09 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to s.111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to permit the demolition of the (56) existing rental dwelling units on the lands and the Owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements, including an agreement pursuant to s.111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to secure, among other matters, the following:

i. The provision of (58) replacement rental units, of which no fewer than (18) shall be designated live-work replacement rental units, including at least (14) live-work replacement rental units located on the ground floor with tall ceiling heights. The (58) replacement rental units shall be collectively comprised of no less than 100% of the existing residential and live/work rental gross floor area, including the gross floor area of all loft spaces erected by the Owner in the existing rental units, as illustrated in principle on Plans RZ151, RZ152 and RZ153 in Public Appendix B to the report (April 27, 2023) from the City Solicitor. The total gross floor area, bedroom types, and unit layouts of the replacement rental units shall be finalized upon the City receiving revised as-built floor plans of all (56) existing rental units, illustrating the area of all existing loft spaces erected by the Owner, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

ii. The rents of the (58) replacement rental units, which shall be based on the rents of the existing rental units by their respective bedroom types at the time of application and secured for a period of at least ten (10) years beginning from the date of first occupancy of each replacement rental unit. The rents shall be finalized upon the City receiving revised rent rolls for all (56) existing rental units at the time of application, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and,

iii. The provision of an acceptable tenant relocation and assistance plan for all eligible tenants of the (56) existing rental units proposed to be demolished, addressing the right to return to occupy one of the replacement rental units at similar rents, the provision of alternative accommodation at similar rents in the form of rent gap payments, and other assistance to mitigate hardship. The tenant relocation and assistance plan shall be developed in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

C. The Owner has, at the Owner's 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 memorandum 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 pedestrian level wind study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

v. Submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services;

vi. Submitted a revised Landscape Plan, including any necessary financial securities, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation;

vii. Submitted an Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment Report acceptable to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and that such matters arising from such study, be secured if required;

viii. Submitted a Transportation Demand Management Plan, including any necessary financial securities to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and that such matters arising from such study, be secured if required; and the Plan shall include:

1. Mode share targets intended on shifting travel away from passenger cars and required parking;

2. Method(s) by which the target mode share and parking rates will be reached (for example -future implementation of a bike share station, car-share or transit pass program);

3. The level of commitment to implement, enforce and maintain the plan moving forward;

4. Expected short-term and long-term outcomes; and,

5. 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 any building permit, including a conditional building permit, for the development and allocated in accordance with the Transportation Demand Management Plan. Such cash contributions 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 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date of any Ontario Land Tribunal Order, allowing the appeal in whole or in part, until the date of payment.

ix. Entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 221 Sterling Road (including active entrances at 225 and 227 Sterling Road), substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by Turner Fleisher Architects Inc. and dated on February 1, 2023, submitted with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Goldsmith Borgal & Compny Ltd. Architects dated on February 10, 2023, subject to, and in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and

x. Provided a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified Heritage Consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment for 221 Sterling Road (including active entrances at 225 and 227 Sterling Road), prepared by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects, dated February on 10, 2023, and details all future conservation efforts as part of this application, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

a) 221 Sterling has withdrawn its appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 558; and

b) 221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc.’s appeal of its application for Draft Plan of Subdivision approval is adjourned sine die.

40AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that it may be spoken to should a matter arise in connection with the implementation of this Interim Order.

“Douglas Colbourne”

DOUGLAS COLBOURNE

VICE CHAIR

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE

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.

SCHEDULE 1