Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 16, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-003516
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
C Squared Properties 160 John Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To allow a 6-storey addition to an existing 5-storey office building in Toronto
Reference Number:
18 226869 STE OZ
Property Address:
156-160 John Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-003516
OLT Case Name:
C Squared Properties 160 John Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
February 24, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
C Squared Properties 160 John Inc.
Meaghan Barrett
City of Toronto
Michael Mahoney
DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a Settlement Hearing with respect to an appeal filed by C Squared Properties 160 John Inc. (“Appellant”) regarding the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the timeframe prescribed in the Planning Act (“Act”), on an application to Amend the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) relating to the property municipally known as 156-160 John Street (“Subject Property”).
BACKGROUND
2The Subject Property is a rectangular shaped parcel that is bounded by Queen Street West to the north, Peter Street to the west, Richmond Street West to the south, and John Street to the east. The Subject Site has 14 meters (“m”) of frontage along John Street and approximately 33.5 m of frontage along an unnamed land to the south, which runs parallel to Queen Street.
3The Appellant submitted the ZBA to the City on September 17, 2018 to permit the construction of a six (6)-storey vertical addition to the existing five (5)-storey office and retail building on the Subject Property. Submitted as part of the application were the following:
a. Planning and Urban Design Rational
b. Urban Transportation Considerations Report
c. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
d. Heritage Impact Assessment Report
4In January of 2019 the first comments on the application were received by the Appellant and the City held a community consultation meeting. On January 23, 2019 the City provided the Appellant with a set of issues regarding the ZBA (Exhibit 1, Page 127-141).
5The Appellant filed the requested technical materials in support of the ZBA in 2020, which included a Falling Ice and Snow Consultation and a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report.
6On April 11, 2022, the Appellant appealed based on City Council’s failure to render a decision within the required time period.
7At the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”), the owner of 307-313 Queen Steet West and 162 John Street, Ms. Karen Durbin (“Neighbour”) sought Party status. The Neighbour’s concerns with the development were:
a. The issue of snow and water falling onto the adjacent property from a sloped roof with zero setbacks, and
b. The perceived impact on the development potential to her property.
8The status request was deferred to allow the Appellant, City and Neighbour to undertake Tribunal-led mediation, which occurred on December 8, 2022.
9Following the mediation, the Appellant made a with prejudice settlement offer to the City to resolve the appeal which was approved by City Council. Additionally, the Neighbour and the Appellant entered into confidential Minutes of Settlement.
HEARING
10To support the proposal, the sole witness called was Kelly Graham, a land use planner who, upon review of her Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form, was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.
11The City and the Appellant filed evidence as follows:
a. Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Kelly Graham
12Ms. Graham explained that the revised proposal addresses the comments and concerns of the City and Neighbour as summarized below:
a. Treating the first four levels of the north façade of the proposed addition with spandrels instead of glazed windows for approximately half of the depth of the site;
b. Using glass block or opaque glazing at the seventh storey north façade; and
c. Setting back the proposed addition from the north face of the existing building on the Subject Property by approximately 0.07 m. (Exhibit 1, Page 4)
13Ms. Graham reviewed the draft ZBA for the Tribunal which establishes the development parameters to facilitate the construction of the proposed development. The ZBA includes the following:
a. Maximum height of 44 m;
b. A 3.4 m stepback above the retained building from the John Street frontage;
c. A 2.5 m rear yard setback;
d. A 0 m setback from the north and south side lot lines;
e. A maximum total non-residential gross floor area of 4,200 square metres;
f. Zero parking and loading is required; and
g. Exemptions from various provisions in By-law 569-2013, including the tower setback regulation of 600.10. (Exhibit 1, page 4)
14Ms. Graham reviewed the Act with regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2. Specifically, the proposal will achieve the orderly development of safe and healthy communities (s. 2.h), the adequate provision of employment opportunities (s. 2.k), the appropriate location of growth and development (s. 2.p), the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians (s. 2.q) and the promotion of built form that is well designed and encourages a sense of place (s. 2.r).
15In regard to the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), Ms. Graham was of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent. Furthermore, she stated that the proposed development contributes to a balanced employment growth within an existing settlement area in a location that is well served by existing transit. The Subject Property is in close proximity to streetcar lines and a short distance to the subway station.
16Ms. Graham explained that the policies regarding Cultural Heritage of s 2.6 of the PPS have been achieved by retaining the existing converted warehouse structure in its entirety, setting back the new addition from the front façade and sloping the roofline of the addition to provide transition to and lessen the visual and shadow impacts along Queen Street West.
17Additionally, Ms. Graham opined that the proposed ZBA is consistent with the PPS, in particular, sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.6.7, 1.7.1, 1.8.1, and 2.6.1.
18The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”) directs a significant amount of new development to occur through the intensification of lands within already built-up areas and with an emphasis on transportation choice. The proposed development is located in Downtown Toronto where transit intensification development is anticipated. The proposed development includes restaurant uses and promotes the use of public transit and active transportation. It was the opinion of Ms. Graham that the proposed development conforms with the GP as it fosters complete communities, encourages active living and efficiently manages growth for a prosperous, sustainable and diverse future.
19The Subject Property is within the Downtown and Central Waterfront areas as defined in the City of Toronto Official Plan (“COP”) and is designated as a Mixed-Use Area. It was the opinion of Ms. Graham that the proposed development is an appropriate location for redevelopment as it is a premiere location for urban growth since it is highly connected, well served by transit and consists of mixed uses which maximize the existing infrastructure.
20In Ms. Graham’s opinion, the proposed development’s height, density, urban design, mix of use and retention of the existing building support the built form policies of the COP. Additionally, the proposed development will achieve the policy objectives by providing transit supportive office uses within the downtown, retaining the existing structure to adequately frame the edge of the street, carefully massing the proposed addition in a manner to minimize shadow impacts on Queen Street, and generally providing a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment. She opined that the proposal conforms with the COP, including (but not limited to) sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 2.4.4, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.5.1, 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.
21The King Spadina Secondary Plan 1996 (“KSSP”) highlights the significance of the distinct built form, heritage, and public realm characteristics of the district. Ms. Graham was of the opinion that the proposed development is in keeping with the KSSP as it will contribute to and enhance the mixture of uses and quality architecture within the district and reinforce the existing street and lane pattern through retention of the existing building.
22Ms. Graham also noted that the Subject Property is within the Downtown Plan (“DTP”) area; however, the application was submitted prior to the adoption of the DTP and is not subject to its direction. Ms. Graham noted that the proposed development meets the intent of the DTP as a refurbished and expanded non-residential building with office and restaurant uses.
23Ms. Graham concluded that the ZBA is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the GP and COP, is good planning, and in her opinion, the ZBA should be approved.
FINDINGS
24The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning evidence and opinions of Ms. Graham and is satisfied that the ZBA is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the GP and COP. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development represents good planning in the public interest and has appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest, specifically as the development is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians while recognizing the importance of the City’s cultural heritage.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and By-law 569-2013 of the City of Toronto is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Toronto to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
“Kurtis Smith”
KURTIS SMITH
MEMBER
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA
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.
ATTACHMENT 1