Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 17, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002150
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Dean Park Holdings Limited
Subject: Application to amend Rouge Community Zoning By-law No. 15907 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Apartment Residential (A)
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit the proposed density of the two new apartment buildings and to establish appropriate zoning provisions to implement the development
Property Address/Description: 1 Dean Park Road
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 15 202048 ESC 44 OZ
OLT Case No. Legacy Case No.: OLT-22-002150 PL171324
OLT Lead Case No.: Legacy Case No.: OLT-22-002150 PL171324
OLT Case Name: Dean Park Holdings Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: November 28, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Dean Park Holdings Limited Aaron Platt Alex Lusty
City of Toronto Mark Crawford
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED S. deBOER ON NOVEMBER 28, 2022 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This matter had been scheduled for a one-day Case Management Conference commencing on November 28, 2022, to obtain an update of the Appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act by Dean Park Holdings Limited (the “Appellant”) against the City of Toronto’s (the “City”) failure to make a decision on the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) within the statutory timelines. The Tribunal was recently advised that a settlement had been reached and that the parties were now seeking an interim order to approve the Zoning By-law Application.
2The Subject Property is located at 1 Dean Park Road in the City of Toronto.
3The lot size of the Subject Property is approximately 16, 387.3 square metres. To the Property’s south is a small commercial plaza and a high-rise residential condominium apartment. To the West, is a low-rise residential development. To the immediate east of the Property is Meadowvale Road. Another low-rise residential neighbourhood is to the east of the Subject Property.
4The Subject Property’s location on the corner of Dean Park Road and Meadowvale Road provides an opportunity for the Proposal to take advantage of the public transit corridor.
5In total, there are 307 new residential units proposed resulting in a floor space index of 2.98. The Proposal would be able to accommodate a total of 647 vehicle spaces and 407 bicycle spaces.
6The original ZBA was filed in August 2015. The original application requested the addition of two 14-storey residential buildings in addition to the existing 16-storey apartment buildings and townhouse complex.
7The ZBA was appealed in November 2017 for the City’s failure to make a decision.
8The Appellant revised the ZBA application in September 2021 and once again in June 2022. The updated agreed upon proposal contains an eight (8)-storey residential building containing 115 units and a 17-storey residential building containing 192 units.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
9The only evidence before the Tribunal was the Affidavit of Michael Goldberg (Exhibit 1) and the submitted Joint Document Book (Exhibit 2). Mr. Goldberg was the Urban Planner retained by the Appellant in this matter and has been the Principal of the Goldberg Group since 2006. Mr. Goldberg has appeared before the Ontario Land Tribunal, Local Planning Appeals Tribunal and Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. Goldberg was affirmed and approved without refute to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
10Mr. Goldberg’s Affidavit provided the Tribunal with a comprehensive overview of the application in relation to the relevant planning documents including the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (the “PPS”), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “GH”), the City Official Plan (the “OP”) and the applicable Zoning By-laws.
11In his opinion, Mr. Goldberg stated that the proposed settlement represents an efficient and desirable form of infill development. The Proposal is an appropriate intensification of the Subject Lands and is good land use planning.
12In addition, Mr. Goldberg and Counsel for the City provided a comprehensive review of the agreed upon conditions opining them to be appropriate for this development, at this stage. The draft ZBA, amending Zoning By-law 569-2013, was presented to the Tribunal and reviewed in relation to the proposed development. The required relief from the various performance standards have been captured, based on the proposed development, as presented. The Tribunal appreciates that, as the conditions are being satisfied, minor amendments to the draft ZBA may be required.
13The Tribunal also understands that a second ZBA, to amend the Rouge Community Zoning By-law No. 15907, may be required and its contents will mimic the required amendments to By-law 569-2013, as needed, to satisfy this older planning instrument.
FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
14The Tribunal accepts the uncontested expert land planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Goldberg. The Tribunal finds that the Proposal has regard to matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City of Toronto Official Plan.
15The Tribunal finds that the Proposal can support the additional rental units without any adverse affects to the existing neighbourhood. The agreed upon conditions are deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.
16The Tribunal agrees that an interim order is appropriate at this time and the final order will not be executed until the conditions listed in the Order below have been deemed complete by the City Solicitor, and the presentation of the final versions of the ZBAs to the Tribunal, for approval.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, based on the most up to date version of the proposed development, as presented. The approval, in principle, of the Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Attachment 1, is contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [18] below. The Tribunal recognizes that the Zoning By-law Amendment to the Rouge Community Zoning By-law No. 15907, was not ready for presentation at this settlement event and upon receipt of this proposed ZBA, the member will make the determination of whether this ZBA can be approved administratively or whether the Tribunal will require assistance from the parties in the form of a further Affidavit from the planner and possibly a re-convening of this matter by Telephone Conference Call.
18The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon written confirmation from the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:
a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendments submitted in final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor and;
b. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has addressed, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, an updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and plans; in addition, the owner would be required to enter into any agreements for the construction of any improvements to existing municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to support this development;
c. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has addressed, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services, an addendum to the Traffic Operations assessment that addresses transportation matters raised in the memo dated March 28, 2022 from the Manager, Development Engineering, Engineering and Construction Services; and
d. The Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, acting under delegated authority, has dealt with the Rental Housing Demolition application and associated rental housing issues including securing an acceptable tenant relocation plan and construction mitigation strategies.
19This Member will remain seized for the purpose of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendments and the issuance of the Final Order.
20If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendments, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [18] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Wednesday, June 28, 2023, 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 Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.
21The 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 and any other requirements the Tribunal may deem necessary for the review of the amendment to the Rouge Community Zoning By-law 15907.
“S. deBoer”
S. deBOER
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.