Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 11, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004171
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Glen Everest Developments Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a 12-storey, 427-unit development
Reference Number: 21 134156 ESC 20 OZ
Property Address: 54-62 Glen Everest Road
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004171
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004171
OLT Case Name: Glen Everest Development Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 17, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Glen Everest Developments Inc.
Joe Hoffman
City of Toronto
Jason Davidson
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. eisazadeh on july 17, 2023 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link To Interim Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a settlement hearing on an appeal filed by Glen Everest Developments Inc. (“Applicant”), pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, against the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) sought in respect of lands municipally known as 54-62 Glen Everest Road, in the City (“Subject Property”).
2An original application (“Original Application”) for the ZBLA was submitted in April 2021, which proposed a 12-storey (37.8 metre, excluding mechanical elements) mid-rise building. Following a preliminary Staff Report, Community Council meeting and community consultation, a revised proposal (“Revised Proposal”) was submitted in June 2022, which significantly revised the built form, site design and development program from the Original Application.
3It is on the Revised Proposal that an appeal to this Tribunal was filed for failure to make a decision. While City Council initially instructed the City Solicitor to attend before this Tribunal in opposition to the appeal, discussions with the Applicant continued in efforts to resolve outstanding issues. Since then, the Applicant has participated in several meetings with the City Staff to review outstanding issues and build consensus on the revisions required to satisfy the issues raised by the City, ultimately resulting in the settlement presented at this hearing for approval (“Settlement Proposal”).
PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
4At a prior Case Management Conference, the Tenants Have No Rights Association (“THNRA”) had been granted Party Status in this matter. Subsequently, on May 16, 2023, the THNRA withdrew its Party Status and advised it had no issues with the proposed development.
5The Tribunal had also previously granted Participant Status to Ryan Debergh. Mr. Debergh was not present at the Settlement Hearing. However, his Participant Statement, which expresses general support for the development, has been reviewed and considered by the Tribunal. As Mr. Debergh’s statement acknowledges, comments on the respecting quality and colour of brick materials and façade of the building, and use of art and murals, are not matters before the Tribunal on a ZBLA appeal.
OVERVIEW OF SITE CONTEXT AND SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
6The Subject Property is comprised of a land assembly made up of three properties, municipally known as 54, 58 and 62 Glen Everest Road. The properties are located on the west side of Glen Everest Road, the east side of Kingston Road, and the south side of Aylesford Drive, in the former City of Scarborough, with frontages on each of the three streets. The Subject Property is designated mixed use in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) and is currently occupied by three, low-rise residential apartment buildings municipally known as 54, 58 and 62 Glen Everest Road, which comprises a total of 68 residential rental units.
7A segment of Kingston Road, on which the Subject Property fronts, is classified as an Avenue. Avenues envision incremental redevelopment to accommodate higher densities and a mix of uses. A City-initiated ‘Avenue’ Study was completed in 2009, which led to amendments introducing a “Commercial-Residential” zoning category to the area as well as increased as-of-right heights and density permissions up to 11-storeys.
8Kingston Road is also classified as a Major Arterial Road. Glen Everest Road and Aylesford Drive are classified as local roadways. The Subject Property is well served by existing surface transit service and is located approximately 1.55 kilometres from Scarborough GO Station on the Lakeshore East GO Transit Line.
9The Settlement Proposal comprises a 12-storey (37.8 metre, excluding mechanical penthouse) mid-rise building with a total of 33,061 square metres of residential gross floor area and a total density of 6.39 Floor Space Index.
10A total of 414 residential units are proposed, comprised of a range of unit suite sizes including 29 studio units, 111 one-bedroom and one-bedroom plus den units, 240 two-bedroom units and two-bedroom plus den units, and 36 three-bedroom units. All 68 of the rental units existing within the current buildings on the Subject Property are proposed to be replaced in like type and size within the new proposed building. Amenity space will be provided at a rate of 4.0 square metres per dwelling unit. Tenant assistance is to be provided.
11A total of 292 parking spaces are proposed, 199 of which are proposed for condominium residents, 49 for rental replacement residents, and 41 for visitors. Three car share spaces are proposed with a total of 311 bicycle parking spaces comprised of 29 short term parking and 282 long term parking spaces.
12Loading spaces (one Type ‘G’ and one Type ‘C’ as required by Zoning By-law(“ZBL”) No. 569-2013) are proposed, accessed from the south side of the building, and will be internalized within the building footprint. The Settlement Proposal incorporates a robust landscaping program, including the pedestrianization of Aylesford Drive, the provision of a pedestrian-priority woonerf at the south end of the site, landscape and streetscape improvements (including new tree plantings, landscaped areas, and hardscaped areas) along Glen Everest Road and Kingston Road.
13The massing of the building is broken up through a number of steps, which establish a lower scale six-storey street wall and internalize the upper levels further away from the street. The cladding and fenestration provide for vertical and horizontal articulation, providing for visual interest and breaking down the scale of the building.
REQUIRED APPROVALS
14The Settlement Proposal seeks to amend City-wide ZBL No. 569-2013 and the former Cliffside Community ZBL No. 9364, as amended by ZBL No. 1224-2009, to increase permitted height and density, to revise site specific standards including parking, bicycle parking, and loading standards, to revise other development standards as necessary to accommodate the proposal, and to add the Subject Property to the City’s Comprehensive ZBL No. 569-2013.
15A Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application (“Demolition Application”) was submitted by the Applicant concurrently with the ZBLA application that is before this Tribunal. The Demolition Application is not before this Tribunal as the approval authority remains the Council for the City. The City Council approval of the Demolition Application is a condition on the issuance of a final order for the ZBLA.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
16The Tribunal received an Affidavit affirmed by the Applicant’s planner, Michael Bissett, who also appeared to provide viva voce evidence. Mr. Bissett was qualified, on consent, by the Tribunal to provide his expert opinion in the area of land use planning in support of the settlement reached.
17The planning documents affecting the amendments sought include: s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”); the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”); the City’s Official Plan (“OP”); the ZBL; and the applicable non-statutory guidelines including the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines (“UDG”); the Mid-Rise Building Guidelines (“MRG”); the Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines (“TLRG”); and the Kingston Road Cliffside Urban Design Guidelines (“KRCUDG”).
18Several common themes, through the related policies and provisions of the aforementioned documents, are implemented by the proposed ZBLA and development, including the following:
The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems as the proposal is located within a Built-Up Area;
The orderly development of safe and healthy communities as the proposal is located within a mixed-use area;
The accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which the Act applies by way of improvements to the existing public realm to improve accessibility in the vicinity of the site;
The adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities as the proposal is in close proximity to community facilities and parks located within the area;
The adequate provision of a full range of housing and affordable housing as the proposal will contribute a range of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units providing opportunities for families, as well as less costly smaller units and full rental replacement of existing rental units;
The adequate provision of employment opportunities by locating the proposal within a mixed-use area with access to a range of commercial uses and job opportunities;
The protection of public health and safety through implementation of the appropriate technical studies to ensure no adverse impacts with respect to noise, wind or transportation;
The appropriate location of growth and development, the proposal being located in a mixed-use area;
The promotion of built form that is well designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant as the proposal will provide for an enhanced and safe pedestrian environment along public street frontages with a design that incorporates setbacks, step-backs, and articulation to break up the massing of the building to provide appropriate transition in intensity and scale;
Intensification through efficient land use and development patterns by way of a proposal that offers more compact built form on an under-utilized property identified for growth and that is well served by municipal infrastructure;
Growth focused in delineated built up areas with existing transit and public service facilities as the development is located on a major arterial road with existing transit and public services;
Achievement of complete communities featuring a diverse mix of land uses and housing options with convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities by way of its location in a mixed use area on an arterial road;
Achieves re-urbanization through intensification in a mixed use area with proposed residential units that will provide for additional living opportunities and that will offer population support to local businesses and create a strong live work relation;
Adds to the supply and range of housing options within a predominantly single-detached and low-rise neighbourhood through the introduction of new contemporary apartment and integrated grade-oriented townhouse units, which are condominium in nature; and,
Improvement of the public realm and enhancement of the block structure of the area by providing a new pedestrian priority woonerf connecting Kingston Road to Glen Everest Road and transforming the segment of Aylesford Drive between Kingston Road and Glen Everest Road into a significant mid-block connection, enhancing block permeability, and expanding the pedestrian realm.
19On the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Bissett, the Tribunal finds that the requested ZBLA has: due regard for matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; conforms with the Growth Plan; is consistent with the PPS; conforms with the City’s OP; are suitable amendments within the policies and provisions of the City’s ZBL and applicable non-statutory design guidelines; and thus, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
INTERIM ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 21 below, and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) for 54 – 62 Glen Everest Road is hereby approved in principle.
21The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon the confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:
a. The Tribunal has received and approved the ZBLA submitted in a 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 City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application No. 21 123167 ESC 20 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to s. 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of 68 existing rental dwelling units at 54, 58 and 62 Glen Everest Road (“Demolition Application”); and,
c. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary to implement City Council's decision on the Demolition Application including:
i. the provision of sixty-eight (68) replacement rental units, with the same unit mix and total gross floor area as the existing rental units, as generally illustrated on Appendix B to the report (April 27, 2023) from the City Solicitor;
ii. the rents of the sixty-eight (68) replacement rental units, which shall be based on the rents of the existing rental units by their respective bedroom types at the time of application and secured for a period of at least 10 years beginning from the date of first occupancy of each replacement rental unit; and,
iii. the provision of an acceptable tenant relocation and assistance plan for all Eligible Tenants of the sixty-eight (68) existing rental units proposed to be demolished, addressing the right to return to occupy one of the replacement rental units at similar rents, the provision of alternative accommodation at similar rents in the form of rent gap payments, opportunity to rent a parking space for those Eligible Tenants currently renting same, and other assistance to mitigate hardship; the tenant relocation and assistance plan shall be developed in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.
d. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services has determined that holding provisions are required in the ZBLA;
e. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study, including an updated Parking and Loading Study and Transportation Demand Management strategy to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such study be secured, if required; and,
f. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Development Engineering and Transportation Services as they relate to the ZBLA application to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Transportation Services.
22If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the ZBLA , and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 21 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, December 18, 2023, the Applicant 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 ZBLA 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.
23The 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 instrument(s), the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
24Should any issues arise, the Panel Member may be spoken to.
“N. Eisazadeh”
N. eisazadeh
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.