Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 19, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003929
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Fieldgate Two-Twenty Apartments Limited
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-laws No. 7625 & 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: RM6
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit development of two additional residential buildings
Property Address/Description: 20 Godstone Rd.
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 19 117787 NNY 17 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003929
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003929
OLT Case Name: Fieldgate Two-Twenty Apartments Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: May 3, 2023, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Fieldgate Two-Twenty Apartments Limited | M. Lakatos-Hayward D. Bronskill (in absentia) |
| City of Toronto | M. Hardiejowski |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON MAY 3, 2023 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a settlement hearing in the matter of the appeal by Fieldgate Two-Twenty Apartments Limited (“Appellant”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at 20 Godstone Road (“subject property” / “Site”).
2The subject property is located in the Don Valley Village neighbourhood, north of Fairview Mall Drive, between Don Mills Road East and Godstone Road. The Site is irregular in shape, has 36.7 metres (“m”) of street frontage on Godstone Road and 47.9 m on Don Mills Road East, and is approximately 11,115 square metres (“m2”) in size.
3The subject property comprises a “Y”-shaped 15-storey rental apartment building, surface parking areas, vehicular circulation and loading areas, as well as passive open space areas, and it is accessed by a private driveway from Godstone Road.
4The Site is surrounded by apartment buildings to the north and south, and residential dwellings to the east. Don Mills Road East is to the west of the Site. There is a 9.14 m Union Gas easement along the Don Mills Road East frontage.
5The only evidence before the Tribunal is the Affidavit of David Morse, sworn May 1, 2023. Mr. Morse is a qualified land use planner. He provided the Tribunal with a comprehensive overview of the applications in relation to the relevant policies.
REVISED PROPOSAL
6The original proposal was to permit the redevelopment of the subject property to allow for a new 14-storey apartment building fronting onto Don Mills Road East, a new 8-storey apartment building fronting onto Godstone Road and the retention of the existing 15-storey apartment building in the centre of the subject property.
7Following discussions with City Staff regarding the original proposal and the appeals, the Applicant made revisions to the proposal.
8The settlement proposal is to redevelop the subject property with a new West 12-storey (39.0 m) apartment building fronting onto Don Mills Road East, a new East 6-storey (20.0 m) apartment building fronting onto Godstone Road and the retention of the existing 15-storey (39.7 m) apartment building in the centre of the Site. It will create 195 new dwelling units and will retain 174 existing rental units and includes a total of 342 parking spaces and 278 bicycle spaces.
9The following is a summary related to the development proposal:
| Initial Proposal | Settlement Proposal | |
|---|---|---|
| Site Area | 11,115 m2 | 11,115 m2 |
| GFA (total) | 34,480 m2 | 31,000 m2 |
| Existing Building | 16,050 m2 | 16,050 m2 |
| West Building | 13,140 m2 | 9,084 m2 |
| East Building | 5,291 m2 | 5,966 m2 |
| Density | 3.1 FSI ("Floor Space Index") | 2.8 FSI |
| Height | ||
| Existing Building | 15 storeys (39.7 m) | 15 storeys (39.7 m) |
| West Building | 14 storeys (41.5 m) | 12 storeys (39.0 m) |
| East Building | 8 storeys (26.5 m) | 6 storeys (20.0 m) |
| Dwelling Units (total) | 421 | 369 |
| - Studio | 2 (0.4%) | 2 (0.5%) |
| - One bedroom | 241 (57.2%) | 137 (37.1%) |
| - Two bedroom | 129 (30.6%) | 177 (48.0%) |
| - Three bedroom | 49 (11.6%) | 53 (14.4%) |
| Indoor Amenity Space | 550 m2 | 570 m2 |
| Outdoor Amenity Space | 733 m2 | 1,495 m2 |
| Vehicle Parking (total) | 385 spaces | 342 spaces |
| - Resident | 343 spaces | 306 spaces |
| - Visitor | 42 spaces | 36 spaces |
| Bicycle Parking (total) | 288 spaces | 252 spaces |
| - Long Term (res.) | 319 spaces | 278 spaces |
| - Short Term (vis.) | 31 spaces | 27 spaces |
| Loading | 2 Type G | 1 Type G + 1 Type C |
PLANNING ANALYSIS
10Mr. Morse stated that the Site is zoned Residential Apartment Commercial (“RAC”) (f20.0; a1375; d1.5) by the Toronto City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. The City-wide Zoning By-law has now been substantially approved by the Tribunal and is in force, except for those provisions that remain under appeal. For such provisions, the former municipal zoning by-laws remain in force. The RAC zone permits dwelling units in an apartment building, as well as day nurseries and small-scale commercial uses subject to specific conditions.
11The subject property is zoned Multiple Family Dwellings Sixth Density Zone (“RM6”) by the former City of North York By-law No. 7625, as amended. The RM6 zone permits apartment house dwellings, a converted dwelling, a multiple attached dwelling, and a nursing home.
12Mr. Morse opined that the existing zoning permissions on the Site are outdated, are not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and do not conform with the Growth Plan For The Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“GP”) and the City Of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”). He further stated that the proposed residential uses on the subject property conform with the in-force RM6 zoning (as amended), and the RAC zoning of the applicable By-laws.
THE PPS
13Mr. Morse explained that the PPS sets out a number of policies that should be considered. He brought to the Tribunal’s attention s. 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.3, 1.6.3, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1 and 1.8.1 of the PPS.
14The Tribunal is satisfied that the settlement proposal will contribute to a healthy, liveable, and sustainable community through providing efficient development and land use patterns and accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types and market-based range and mix of residential units.
15The subject property is within 520 m of Don Mills Subway Station and to a network of express and local bus routes.
16The Tribunal agrees that the settlement proposal and the ZBA are consistent with the PPS.
THE GP
17The Tribunal finds that the proposed redevelopment conforms to several of the guiding principles that are established in s. 2.2.1.2 of the GP, which states that forecasted growth to the 2051 planning horizon will be allocated based on settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary, have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems, and can support the achievement of complete communities.
18Mr. Morse opined the proposal conforms to the principles of the GP policies, because it will introduce a compact urban form of development on the subject property in a transit-supportive manner within the urban built-up area.
19The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal and ZBA conforms to the GP.
THE OP
20The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Morse’s opinion that the settlement proposal conforms to the general intent of the OP, with regard to the efficient utilization of land, developing within the urban area of the City, providing new homes, jobs, and transit supportive densities, and intensifying an underutilized site within an area intended for mixed uses.
21Mr. Morse stated that the Don Mills Road (between Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue) is identified as a Transit Corridor Expansion Element on Map 4 of the OP. Additionally, Map 5 of the OP identifies Don Mills Road as a Transit Priority Segment Expansion Element. The Site is located within a seven-to-nine-minute walking distance north of the Don Mills subway station.
22Mr. Morse provided that the proposed settlement supports the housing policies of the OP, that seek to maintain and replenish the existing housing stock and encourage the development of new housing supply though intensification and infill, and is consistent with the OP.
23He further opined that the proposed settlement represents a continuation of the existing permitted apartment use.
24Mr. Morse summarized that the height of the proposed development is consistent with the heights of the surrounding apartment buildings. The East 6-storey building will provide for the appropriate height transition to the low-rise residential neighbourhoods to the east.
25The Tribunal accepts Mr. Morse’s opinions and finds that the proposed development is compatible with the character of the neighbourhood and is satisfied that the settlement proposal and implementing ZBA maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP.
CONCLUSION
26In determining this matter, the Tribunal considered the municipal records, the matters before Council, and considered and accepted the uncontroverted land use planning evidence of Mr. Morse. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal is an efficient development of the underutilized subject lands within walking distance of the Don Mills subway station, which promotes a liveable, healthy community and represents an appropriate form of intensification in a location that is planned and well-suited for it.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, in part, and the proposed development is approved in principle.
28The Tribunal’s Final Order is withheld pending written confirmation from the City Solicitor that:
a) the final form and content of the Zoning By-law amendments are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;
b) the Applicant has, at its sole expense, provided a Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Toronto Water, or that the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services has determined that holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law amendment;
c) the Applicant, at its sole expense, has designed and provided financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development;
d) confirmation from the City Solicitor that the implementation of the Functional Servicing Report, Groundwater Report, Stormwater Management Report and Hydrogeological Report, including the Foundation Report, accepted by Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager Transportation Services, does not require changes to the proposed amending by-law or that any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending by-laws to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner, City Planning Division, and the City Solicitor;
e) the Applicant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review; and
f) the Applicant has, at its sole expense, provided a Transportation Impact Study to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.
“P. Tomilin”
P. tomilin
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.