Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 15, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004161

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

Applicant/ Appellant: Rosegold Developments Inc.

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

Description: To permit an 11-storey, 133 units residential building

Reference Number: 21 251175 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 1141 Roselawn Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004161

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004161

OLT Case Name: Rosegold Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/ Appellant: Rosegold Developments Inc.

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

Description: To permit an 11-storey, 133 units residential building

Reference Number: 21 251175 NNY 08 OZ

Property Address: 1141 Roselawn Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004162

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004161

Heard: December 6, 2023 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Rosegold Developments Inc.

Brendan Ruddick

Aaron Platt

City of Toronto

Uttra Gautam

Kasia Czajkowski

DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Rosegold Developments Inc. (“Appellant”) applied to the City of Toronto (“City”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (collectively “Applications”) for the property municipally known as 1141 Roselawn Avenue (“Subject Property”). The City failed to render a decision within the statutory timelines respecting the Applications and the Appellant appealed to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”).

2On December 21, 2021, the Appellant submitted the Applications to the City to permit the redevelopment of the Subject Property with an 11-storey (34 metre) residential building consisting of 133 residential units, approximately 898 square metres of live work space, 94 vehicle parking spaces and 163 bicycle spaces (“Original Proposal”).

3The Applications for the Original Proposal were deemed complete by City staff on January 31, 2022, and a community meeting was held on March 3, 2022.

4On July 7, 2022, the Appellant appealed the City’s failure to render a decision on the Applications for the Original Proposal. The Tribunal held its first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on December 13, 2022, and a second CMC on April 11, 2023.

5The Parties engaged in mediation, the result of which was a settlement in principle.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

6Briefly summarized, the Original Proposal has been revised to permit a 9-storey (28.72 metre) residential building, a tenth floor containing a mechanical penthouse and rooftop amenity area, 135 residential units, amenity space of 552 square metres, 71 vehicle parking spaces and 128 bicycle spaces (“Proposed Development”).

7The draft OPA, which facilitates the Proposed Development, is attached to this Decision as Schedule A, and the draft ZBA, which also facilitates the Proposed Development, is attached to this Decision as Schedule B.

8The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal allow the appeals in part and approve the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, acknowledging that the final draft OPA and ZBA may be further refined. Further, the Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal withhold the Final Order pending confirmation from the City that the conditions, set out in paragraph [19] below, are satisfied.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9The written materials before the Tribunal were the Affidavit of Eldon Theodore sworn November 24, 2023, which was marked as Exhibit 1. Mr. Theodore is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and a Registered Professional Planner with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He has over 21 years of land use planning and urban design experience and the Tribunal qualified him to provide written opinion evidence on land use planning on consent of the Parties.

10In his affidavit, Mr. Theodore provided a comprehensive contextual and planning rationale in support of the Proposed Development. He opined that the OPA and ZBA, which will facilitate the Proposed Development, satisfy all requisite legislative tests, and overall, are representative of good planning and urban design and are in the public interest.

11Mr. Theodore attested that the Subject Property is approximately 0.19 hectares in size with frontage on Roselawn Avenue of approximately 55 metres. The Subject Property is located within an established residential neighbourhood and is currently serviced with higher order transit and local bus routes.

12It is Mr. Theodore’s opinion that the proposed OPA and ZBA will facilitate additional residential units to be developed while optimizing existing infrastructure. The Proposed Development is transit-supportive and compatible with the surrounding residential area, which will contribute to the creation of complete communities. The proposed OPA and ZBA which will facilitate the Proposed Development will assist in the provision of additional housing choices for existing and future residents and support the Province and the City in meeting their housing objectives.

13Mr. Theodore attested that the Proposed Development establishes an appropriate transition to surrounding lower scale buildings, incorporates appropriate stepbacks to protect privacy, reduces shadow impacts and overlook, all of which meet design objectives established by the City.

14Overall, Mr. Theodore opined that the proposed OPA and ZBA are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), conform to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”) and the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”). Further, they provide appropriate regulations and performance standards so as to conform with the intent of the in-force policies of the OP.

15Mr. Theodore recommended to the Tribunal that the proposed OPA and ZBA be approved in principle, and the Final Order be withheld pending satisfaction of the conditions, set out in paragraph [19] below which Mr. Theodore opined are typical and appropriate in this circumstance.

16On the strength of the uncontradicted expert opinion evidence of Mr. Theodore, and upon a review of the applicable provisions of the Act, the PPS, the Growth Plan and the OP, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed OPA and the proposed ZBA represent an efficient use of land, resources and infrastructure, and they achieve important local, regional and provincial policy objectives. Further, the Tribunal is of the view that the settlement reached by the Parties is fair and reasonable, and that the resulting OPA and ZBA represent good planning in the public interest. Further, the Tribunal commends the Parties in working collaboratively and engaging in productive discussions in order to reach a settlement in these proceedings.

INTERIM ORDER

17The 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.

18The Tribunal further orders that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, set out in Schedules A and B to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

19The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon satisfactory fulfillment of the following pre-requisite matters:

a) the final form and content of the draft Official Plan and Zoning By-laws are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b) the Owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, which includes the determination of storm water runoff, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from this development, and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the Proposed Development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

c) the Owner has made satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and entered into the appropriate agreement with the City of Toronto for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development, according to the Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

d) the Owner has provided space within the development for installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, as close to the property line as possible, for both the storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers By-law Chapter 681.10;

e) the Owner has submitted a revised Traffic Impact Study, including a Transportation Demand Management Plan, and a Vehicle Maneuvering Diagram, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

f) the Owner has submitted a Wind Study addressing the rooftop outdoor amenity space to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, with any mitigation measures, if required, to be satisfied through the Site Plan approval process; and

g) the Owner has submitted a revised Electromagnetic Field Study and Electromagnetic Field Management Plan in accordance with the letter from Toronto Public Health dated January 30, 2023, to the satisfaction of the Chief Medical Officer, with any mitigation measures, if required, to be satisfied through the Site Plan approval process.

20The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

21If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and 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 do not request the issuance of the Final Order on or before Friday, August 30, 2024, the Appellant 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 Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and 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 instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

23The Member may be spoken to should any issues arise with respect to the implementation of this Order.

“C. Hardy”

c. hardy

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.