CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-003827

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S):

December 06, 2023

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE:

December 20, 2023

RE: NHD Developments Limited v. Toronto (City)

Correction to: the Appearances List (on page 2) - to reflect both counsels’ names for Suncor Energy Products Partnership (“Suncor”).

Originally:

Corrected to:

APPEARANCES:

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Parties

Counsel

Suncor Energy Products Partnership (“Suncor”)

P. Pinho

Suncor Energy Products Partnership (“Suncor”)

P. Pinho

K. Sutton (in absentia)

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI REGISTRAR

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.

ISSUE DATE:

December 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-003827

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

NHD Developments Limited

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

OPA/ZBA to facilitate two 4-storey residential townhouse blocks

Reference Number:

21 235816 WET 07 OZ

Property Address:

11 Catford Road and 20 Broadoaks Drive

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No:

OLT-22-003827

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-003827

OLT Case Name:

NHD Developments Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant:

NHD Developments Limited

Subject:

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

Description:

OPA/ZBA to facilitate two 4-storey residential townhouse blocks

Reference Number:

21 235816 WET 07 OZ

Property Address:

11 Catford Road and 20 Broadoaks Drive

Municipality/UT:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No:

OLT-22-003828

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-003827

Heard:

November 1, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

NHD Developments Limited (“Appellant”)

C. Tanzola

M. Cara

City of Toronto (“City”)

S. O’Connor

J. Dexter (in absentia)

Suncor Energy Products Partnership (“Suncor”)

P. Pinho

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND D. CHIPMAN ON NOVEMBER 1, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an Appeal filed by the Appellant pursuant to s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (the “Act”), regarding the City’s failure to render a decision on the Appellant’s applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment (the “OPA” and “ZBA”, respectively) within the statutory timeframe.

2The Appellant owns the property municipally identified as 11 Catford Road and 20 Broadoaks Drive in the City (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property is bordered by Catford Road to the north, Keele Street to the east, Broadoaks Drive to the south and Derrydown Road to the west. It has an area of 31,805 square metres (“m2”). The Subject Property is occupied by two, nine-storey rental apartment buildings and is surrounded by a mix of uses, including low-density retail to the east, a gasoline station owned and operated by Suncor to the south along with residential apartments, and residential neighbourhoods to the west and north.

3The Appellant’s applications contemplate retaining the two nine-storey rental apartment buildings on the Subject Property and further developing two four-storey residential townhouse blocks, an 11-storey mixed-use building, and the two-tower with heights of 21-storey and 25-storey connected by a seven-storey podium. These revisions modified the original applications which proposed 12-storey for the mixed-use building, as well as 18-storey and 30-storey for the two-tower.

4Prior to the hearing, the Parties reached a settlement and are now seeking an Order from the Tribunal allowing the Appeals in part, and approving, in principle, the revised OPA and ZBA applications. A settlement of the issues raised by Suncor had been reached prior to this hearing, which resulted in an agreement between the Appellant and Suncor which was secured.

5For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal approves the OPA and ZBA applications in principle. The final Order will be withheld until the Tribunal receives confirmation from the Parties that the applications’ preconditions have been satisfied, and the delivery of finalized OPA and ZBA applications.

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

6When considering appeals under section 22(7) and 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal shall:

a. Have regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act;

b. Ensure its decision is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (the “PPS”), as set out in s. 3(5) of the Act;

c. Ensure its decision conforms, or does not conflict, with any provincial plans that are in effect on the date of the decision – in this case the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, as amended (the “Growth Plan”); and

d. Ensure its decision conforms, or does not conflict, with any applicable Secondary Plans and City Guidelines – in this case, the Keele Finch Secondary Plan, the City of Toronto Zoning By-Law (“ZBL”) No. 7625, the Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines, the Mid-Rise Building Design Guidelines, the Tall Building Design Guidelines, and “Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities”.

SUBMISSIONS

7Evidence in support of the Revised Site Plan was provided by the Appellant’s Planner, Andrew Ferancik. Mr. Ferancik is a Registered Professional Planner in the Province of Ontario, a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and has been practicing as a land use Planner for over 20 years. He was duly qualified by the Tribunal as an expert in land use planning.

8The Tribunal was provided with the Affidavit of Andrew Ferancik, dated October 30, 2023, marked as Exhibit 1. The Parties also provided a Joint Document Book, marked as Exhibit 2.

9Mr. Ferancik testified that in his opinion, the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, in that it optimizes the use of existing land and infrastructure within a settlement area, increases the number and type of housing options, encourages the use of existing and planned higher-order transit infrastructure, and creating a high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant community.

10He opined the proposed OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS by promoting the efficient use of land by intensifying an underutilized site with new housing options and new commercial uses, while designing in a sensitive manner to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, including the gas station located to the south of the Subject Lands.

11Mr. Ferancik testified that the OPA and ZBA conform to the Growth Plan, namely by featuring a diverse mix of land uses, providing a range and mix of housing options, expanding access to transportation options and public service facilities, and providing for compact built-form.

12In his opinion, the OPA and ZBA conform to the City’s Official Plan and the Keele Finch Secondary Plan, as appropriate infill development compatible with the existing buildings located on the subject site and adjacent land uses, which also provides a mid-block connection extending east-west between Keele Street and Derrydown Road and contributing towards an improved pedestrian environment and connectivity for residents and visitors.

13He also testified that the OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard for the guidelines applicable to the site in the following manner:

a. Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines: the townhouses are an appropriate built form which provide an adequate transition to both the existing and planned context within the York University Heights neighbourhood.

b. Mid-Rise Building Design Guidelines: the 11-storey building contributes an appropriately scaled, street-related building form that appropriately transitions to lower-density residential uses and is oriented along the eastern property line to maintain an animated and consistent streetscape.

c. Tall Building Design Guidelines: the 21 and 25-storey buildings are responsive to the intent, purpose, and direction of the guidelines, appropriately sited and scaled while ensuring adequate sunlight and sky views are maintained on the subject site for the existing buildings, proposed buildings, and adjacent properties.

d. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities: the OPA and ZBA proposals will create an environment that supports and nurtures the healthy development of children and families, provides 7% of units as three-bedroom units, 35% of units as two-bedroom units, as well as 2,188 m2 of new indoor amenity space and 2,188 m2 of new outdoor amenity space.

14Mr. Ferancik concluded that in his opinion, the OPA and ZBA proposed represent good planning, good design, and are in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

15The Tribunal accepts the above evidence and uncontroverted professional opinions of Mr. Ferancik.

16The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, Keele Finch Secondary Plan, the guidelines as set out in paragraph 13, represents good planning, and are in the public interest.

INTERIM ORDER

17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part, and that the draft OPA and ZBA found at TAB C-4 and C-5 of Exhibit 2 are approved in principle.

18The final approval of the OPA and ZBA shall be withheld by the Tribunal until:

a. the delivery by counsel for the Appellant of the final OPA and ZBA planning instruments, within six months of the date of this Interim Order; and

b. the written confirmation by counsel for the City that the following pre-conditions have been fulfilled:

i. the final form and content of the OPA and ZBA are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

ii. the Appellant has provided a revised Functional Servicing Report to be reviewed to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

iii. the Appellant has provided a revised Parking Study, a revised Loading Study, a revised Traffic Operations Assessment, and a revised Transportation Impact Study, to be reviewed to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

iv. the Appellant has provided a revised Pedestrian Wind Study, such report to be reviewed with recommendations implemented as part of the amending Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law(s) and/or secured in a development agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

v. the Appellant has provided an acceptable Land Use Compatibility Study, Noise Impact Study, and Vibration Study, such reports to be peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant on behalf of the City and at the Appellant’s expense, with recommendations to be implemented as part of the amending Official Plan policies and Zoning By-laws and/or secured in a development agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

vi. the Appellant has made satisfactory arrangements with the City and has entered into the appropriate agreements for the design and construction of any improvements to municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development, according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and Transportation Impact Study accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

vii. the Appellant has provided a revised Tree Preservation Plan and a revised Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; and

viii. the Appellant has made satisfactory arrangements and has entered into an appropriate agreement(s), such agreement(s) to be entered into prior to Site Plan approval, to secure the following matters to support the development as follows:

1. the Appellant shall continue to provide and maintain the existing 399 rental units located at 11 Catford Road and 20 Broadoaks Drive as rental housing for a period of at least 20 years commencing from the date the OPA and ZBA come into force and effect, with no application for demolition or conversion from residential rental use during the 20-year period, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

2. the Appellant shall undertake improvements to the existing rental buildings located at 11 Catford Road and 20 Broadoaks Drive at its sole expense and at no cost to tenants, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner, including: storage lockers and bicycle storage for use by tenants of the existing rental buildings within the existing rental buildings; accessibility and interior improvements to the existing rental buildings; access to a component of the indoor amenities in the proposed new building for tenants of the existing rental buildings; lobby and interior ground floor improvements; and improved screened garbage/recycling collection areas associated with the existing buildings.

19The Panel may be spoken to if any issues arise with respect to the above conditions.

“F. Lavoie”

F. LAVOIE MEMBER

“D. Chipman”

D. CHIPMAN 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.