Novi Properties Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 64043

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 12, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001924

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

Applicant/Appellant: Novi Properties Inc.

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

Description: To permit an infill development consisting of a 14-storey purpose built rental and a 10-storey residential condominium

Reference Number: 20 230695 NNY 17 OZ

Property Address: 10 Ruddington Drive

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-001924

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-001924

OLT Case Name: Novi Properties Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: March 17, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Novi Properties

Daniel Artenosi Michael Cara

City of Toronto

Kasia Czajkowski

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS ON MARCH 17, 2023 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

1The matter before the Tribunal was the appeal by Novi Properties (“Applicant/Appellant”) from the failure or refusal of the City of Toronto (“City”) to enact an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 7625 (“ZBA”) for the property located at 10 Ruddington Drive, in the City of Toronto (“subject property/Site”).

2The Site comprises an area of approximately 1.4 hectares (14,380 square meters (“sq m”)) and is located on the east side of Bayview Avenue, north of Finch Avenue East on Ruddington Drive. The property has approximately 72.2 metres (“m”) of street frontage along Bayview Avenue and 264.7 m along Ruddington Drive. There are two existing vehicular accesses to the Site from Ruddington Drive. The property is currently developed with a 13-storey apartment building, 35.7 m in height and containing 155 rental units, comprised of one-bedroom (28), two-bedroom (54) and three-bedroom (73) units.

3The subject property is designated “Apartment Neighbourhoods” in the City Official Plan (“OP”).

4By way of clarification; in Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 (“ZBL 569-2013”) the subject property is within a “Hole”, meaning the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 (“ZBL 7625”) is in full force and effect on the Site. The proposed ZBA would add the subject property to ZBL 569-2013 and rezone it to RA (“Residential Apartment”) in accordance with the proposed Apartment Neighbourhoods designation. The proposed zoning would also include a RA Exception zone, which would establish built form regulations in accordance with the Settlement Proposal.

Background to the Development Proposal

5On September 18, 2020, the Applicant submitted a ZBA application to permit the infill development of the Site with a 182-unit, 14-storey (45.7 m in height including mechanical penthouse) purpose-built rental building fronting onto Bayview Avenue (“Bayview Building”), and 127 residential units in a 10-storey (36.2 m in height, including mechanical penthouse) residential condominium building fronting onto Ruddington Drive (“Ruddington Building”) for a total of 309 new dwelling units. The planned development has a gross floor area (“GFA”) of 41,480 sq m and results in a density of 2.88 times the area of the lot. A 651 sq m on-site park is being proposed adjacent to the hydro corridor. The hydro corridor is immediately north of the Site and is approximately 100 m wide (“Original Proposal”).

6On December 23, 2021, the Applicant filed an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) from the failure of City Council to make a decision on the application within the statutory timeframe, pursuant to s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act.

7Over several days in December 2022, the Parties engaged in settlement discussions which resulted in several changes being made to the massing of the development and site plan. On January 25, 2023, the Applicant submitted a without prejudice offer to the City to settle the appeal that reflected the proposed modifications to the original development plans (“Current Proposal”). At a meeting on February 7, 2023, City Council accepted the settlement offer subject to certain conditions.

8The Current Proposal, which is now before the Tribunal for consideration, retains the existing 13-storey apartment building, but the Bayview Building has been reduced from 14 storeys to a 13-storey apartment building, 38.8 m in height to the top of roof (43.3 m inclusive of mechanical penthouse) with two 10-storey “wing” components at the north and south ends of the building. The mechanical penthouse has been redesigned to be setback from the edge on all sides of the building. The Bayview Building also incorporates step backs above the tenth storey at a minimum of 3 m.

9The previously proposed 10-storey apartment building along Ruddington Drive has been replaced with 24 townhouse units in three townhouse blocks which run parallel to the street. The townhouse blocks are setback 5.5 m from the property line and each townhouse has a width of 4.5 m. As a result of the built form change, 24 parking spaces are being provided to service the townhouse blocks.

10Collectively, the proposed buildings contain a total of 244 dwelling units (inclusive of the 24 townhouse units), maintain a total GFA of 20,392 sq m of residential space and 36,820 sq m of residential GFA inclusive of the existing 13-storey apartment building, resulting in a density of 2.56 (Floor Space Index).

11The subject property is approximately 2.31 kilometres from the Finch Avenue subway station, and Toronto Transit Commission bus stops are located on both sides of Bayview Avenue within the vicinity of the Site.

Planning Evidence

12Antonio Volpentesta provided a comprehensive land use planning analysis and opinion evidence in support of the Revised Proposal. He is a registered professional planner (RPP) and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners with more than 42 years of diversified experience in the field of land use planning.

13Based on his extensive review and planning analysis, it is Mr. Volpentesta’s professional opinion that the Current Proposal represents good planning and urban design. The proposed implementing ZBA has appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“GP”) and the OP.

14From a land use planning perspective, the Current Proposal is supported by numerous policy directions that seek to facilitate residential development within built-up areas. The intensification of the Site is promoted by the applicable policy framework. The policy directions at both the provincial and municipal levels emphasize the efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure and encourage the integration of land use planning and transportation planning. In his opinion, optimizing density in areas such as this that are well-served by transit is in the public interest and will support the efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure. The re-urbanization of the Site will assist in improving the liveability of the urban area and in meeting population forecasts for the City as set out in the GP, both by the retention of existing housing stock and the provision of new residential units including new rental units.

15In Mr. Volpentesta’s professional opinion the Site is a contextually appropriate location for a mid-rise building and a townhouse block given the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation. The Site is located on a major street and is within proximity to buildings of similar height and massing. In his view, the Bayview Building meets the intent of the City’s Mid-Rise Guidelines.

16The new townhouse block has regard for the Council-adopted Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines and substantially complies with the design principles therein. The townhouse blocks have been designed to provide frontage on Ruddington Drive and are setback 5 m from the south property line. An internal network of pedestrian mews and walkways are being provided throughout the Site which lead directly to the public sidewalks on Ruddington Drive, the public park at the north-east corner of the property and the pedestrian walkway along the north property line to enhance direct and continuous movement throughout the entire Site. The townhouse blocks have building breaks between them and generally fit within a 45-degree angular plane applied from the south property line.

17Moreover, the Current Plans will fit within the area context and provide appropriate transition to neighbouring buildings and uses. The Bayview Building as proposed is well separated from the closest lands within the “Neighbourhoods” designation and the townhouse blocks adequately mitigate built form impacts on the adjacent right-of-way and Neighbourhoods designated properties on the south side of Ruddington Drive. The building heights being proposed are consistent with nearby existing development along Bayview Avenue. In his opinion, the massing as revised is appropriate and will fit harmoniously into the existing and planned context surrounding the property, and constitutes compatible infill development.

18From a housing perspective, the Current Proposal conforms with the OP policy in regard to the protection and replacement of rental housing, the provision of amenities for existing tenants, and the addition of housing providing a mix of unit types. The Current Proposal will result in the retention of 155 rental apartments and introduce an additional 244 new dwelling units.

19On the basis of his overall planning rationale, it is Mr. Volpentesta’s professional opinion that the Current Proposal will achieve an appropriate balance in implementing the full range of planning policies articulated in his affidavit of planning evidence. In that regard, he is recommending that the implementing ZBA be approved in principle, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions.

Findings and Disposition

20The Tribunal accepts and relies on the uncontroverted evidence contained in the sworn affidavit of Mr. Volpentesta to find that the development that is being proposed is appropriate for the Site. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Revised Proposal has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the policy directives of the PPS, conforms with and furthers the policy directives of the GP and the OP.

21In particular, the Tribunal finds that the development proposal is in conformity with the Provincial mandate to provide more housing types and opportunities within a built-up area with existing infrastructure, including municipal servicing infrastructure, roadways and transit and transportation services. In the same vein, the proposal will enhance the public realm by providing high quality public spaces and recreational amenities. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Current Proposal, subject to the fulfillment of conditions, aligns with the principles of good land use planning and is in the public interest.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and the Amendment to City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 is approved in principle. The Final Order is being without pending confirmation from the City of the final form of the ZBA and that the following conditions have been satisfied:

a) the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 is in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

b) the owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, including a Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report, and Geotechnical Plan, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

c) the owner has entered into an agreement or agreements or otherwise secured the design, construction, and the provision of financial securities for any required upgrades or improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development as may be identified in the accepted Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report and Geotechnical Plan, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

d) the owner has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study and Transportation Demand Management Study to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

e) the owner has submitted a Computational Fluid Dynamics Wind Study to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, with any mitigation measures, if required, to be secured and satisfied through the site plan approval process to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

f) the owner has submitted a revised Electromagnetic Field Study and Electromagnetic Field Management Plan, in accordance with the letter from Toronto Public Health dated November 29, 2022, to the satisfaction of the Chief Medical Officer, with any mitigation measures, if required, to be satisfied through the site plan approval process;

g) the owner has submitted a revised Arborist’s Report, Tree Preservation Program and Soil Volume Plan to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Recreation and Forestry;

h) the owner has registered or authorized the City to register a Section 118 Restriction on the title to the Parkland and the townhouse block, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and the City Solicitor with the conveyance of the parkland to be secured through the site plan process to take place prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the townhouse block, and subject to the Owner retaining a right to occupy the parkland for staging during construction of the townhouses, with the final build-out of the parkland to base park standards to be completed prior to the earlier of: (i) three (3) years after the conveyance of the parkland, and (ii) condo registration; and

i) the owner has conducted a Tenant Rental Improvement Survey in collaboration with City Housing Staff, indicating which improvements will happen to the existing building on the Site and on what timeline, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

“M.A. Sills”

M.A. SILLS

VICE-CHAIR

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. Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.