Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 05, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001666
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Cosburn Developments Limited
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law - Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a residential apartment building which steps up to a height of 15 storeys
Property Address: 5-19 Cosburn Avenue and 8-40 Gowan Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 20 232897 STE 14 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001666
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001666
OLT Case Name: Cosburn Developments Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: June 08, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Cosburn Developments Limited
Zachary Fleisher
City of Toronto
Jason Davidson
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI ON JUNE 8, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Cosburn Developments Limited for failure of the City of Toronto to make a decision within the timeframes specified in these respective subsections of the Act.
2The Parties confirmed a settlement which was presented to the Tribunal. The Affidavit of Roxy Shiell was marked as Exhibit 1.
3Ms. Shiell was affirmed and qualified to provide for the Tribunal uncontested opinion evidence in areas of land use planning.
4A Statistical comparison of 5-19 Cosburn Avenue and 8-40 Gowan Avenue was marked as Exhibit 2.
The Site and Surrounding Context
5The Subject Site is located approximately 50 metres (“m”) east of Broadview Avenue, south of Cosburn Avenue and north of Gowan Avenue.
6There are multiple bus routes that serve the Subject Site. The northbound stop is situated around 80 meters towards the west of the Subject Site, precisely at the intersection of Broadview Avenue and Cosburn Avenue. On the other hand, the southbound stop is situated approximately 90 meters towards the west of the Subject Site on the west side of Broadview Avenue, which is south of Cosburn Avenue. Further, the Subject Site is located approximately 430 m west of the future Cosburn Station on the Ontario Line at the intersection of Pape Avenue and Cosburn Avenue, representing about a four- to five-minute walk, and is included within the City’s delineation of the Cosburn Major Transit Station Area. Official Plan Amendment 575, which enacts Site and Area Specific Policy 766 – Major Transit Station Area – Cosburn Station, has been adopted by the City and is awaiting Provincial approval.
7The Subject Site is an assembly of 18 properties comprising several low-rise residential dwellings one to two storeys in height. These include five single-detached dwelling lots and three semi-detached lots on Gowan Avenue, and one single-detached dwelling lot and three semi-detached dwelling lots on Cosburn Avenue, containing. The assembly includes the following buildings:
8, 10, 12, 14, 16 Gowan Avenue: six, one-storey single-detached dwellings;
30-32, 34-36 and 38-40 Gowan Avenue: three, one-storey semi-detached dwellings;
5 Cosburn Avenue: one, two-storey single-detached dwelling; and
7-9, 11-15, and 17-19 Cosburn Avenue: three, two-storey semi-detached dwellings.
8The Subject Site is located in the Pape Neighbourhood (part of East York). The surrounding area contains several mid-rise and high-rise apartment buildings and single- and semi-detached house forms, as well as interspersed commercial and institutional properties.
9The Subject Site is located within an existing Apartment Neighbourhood whose immediate boundaries extend from the north side of Gamble Avenue to the north, Pape Avenue to the east, Gowan Avenue to the south and Broadview Avenue to the west. This pocket consists primarily of ‘tower in the park’ mid- and high-rise residential apartment dwellings ranging between 12 and 22 storeys in height.
10Community services and facilities are found to the east of the Subject Site along Logan Avenue. Just south of Gowan Avenue is Chester Elementary School (115 Gowan Avenue) and Westwood Middle School (994 Carlaw Avenue). Westwood Parkette is adjacent to both schools and provides a neighbourhood park amenity space for the existing community. Within the broader surrounding context at the northeast corner of Pape Avenue and Torrens Avenue is the East York Community Recreation Centre and Toronto Public Library Todmorden Room branch (1081 Pape Avenue East), east of which is William Burgess Elementary School (100 Torrens Avenue).
Settlement Before the Tribunal
11Ms. Shiell testified that the settlement Proposal provides for the redevelopment of the Subject Site with a 24-storey (75.4 m plus a 6.5-m mechanical penthouse) residential tower with a total gross floor area of 27,277 square metres (“m2”), and a gross density of 6.04 times the lot area. A total of 425 residential rental units are proposed, including 43 three-bedroom units (10%), 95 two-bedroom units (22%), 263 one-bedroom units (62%), and 24 studio units (6%). Residential amenity space is provided throughout the development, including approximately 850 m2 of indoor amenity space and 850 m2 of outdoor amenity space (equating to 2 m2 per unit of each indoor and outdoor amenity space).
12A total of 180 parking spaces, plus two car-share spaces, are provided below grade within a two-level underground parking garage with covered driveway access from Cosburn Avenue within the northeast portion of the building. Loading and servicing is also accessed from the same driveway, with one Type “G” loading space enclosed within the east façade of the building and screened from view.
13At grade, the Settlement Proposal addresses Cosburn Avenue by locating the residential indoor amenity space along the building frontage. Adjacent to the indoor amenity area and set back from the main building frontage, the residential lobby is directly accessible from the Cosburn Avenue sidewalk. West of the building is an open space with a proposed 3-m pedestrian walkway which provides northerly access from Cosburn Avenue to the proposed public park within the southwest corner of the Subject Site.
14Along the Gowan Avenue frontage, the Settlement Proposal incorporates grade related residential units with private front yard patios and direct access from the public sidewalk along the north side of the right-of-way. Along the western segment of the Gowan Avenue frontage is the proposed parkland dedication which is approximately 456 m2 in size (and equivalent to 10% of the gross area of the Subject Site).
15The remainder of the ground floor is occupied by residential units, storage and service spaces, and an additional residential indoor amenity space which is adjacent to a contiguous outdoor amenity space within the eastern portion of the Subject Site.
16Ms. Shiell informed the Tribunal that within the northern portion of the Subject Site, the Settlement Proposal is massed to provide a four-storey podium element along Cosburn Avenue that is set back at minimum 2 m from the north, 2 m from the northeast and 10.5 m from the west. Above the fourth floor, the building steps back an additional 2 m from the north, 10.5 m from the northeast, and 2 m to the west to the tower element rising to the 24th floor.
17No continuous balconies will wrap around the building. Projected balconies will be located as needed. The tower element will have a typical floorplate of 800 m2 gross construction area (“GCA”) from the ninth to 22nd floors, above which the tower setbacks are increased from the south and east each by 3 m respectively, reducing the floor plate area of the 23rd and 24th floors to approximately 663 m2 GCA.
18Ms. Shiell stated that within the southern portion of the Subject Site, the Settlement Proposal is massed to provide an eight-storey podium element with a four-storey streetwall along Gowan Avenue, which is reflective of the scale proposed along the Cosburn Avenue frontage to the north. The general form of the mid-rise building element along Gowan Avenue terraces away from the street and side lot lines above the four-storey streetwall.
19At grade, the building is set back at a minimum of 2 m from the south, 3 m from the east, and 5 m from the west. Above the fourth floor, the building steps back an additional 3 m from the south and 3 m from the east. Above the sixth floor, the building steps back again an additional 3 m from the south and 3 m from the west.
20Above the eighth floor, the building steps back significantly to the north; 34.4 m from the south lot line. Atop the eight-storey podium element is an additional residential outdoor amenity area which is contiguous with an indoor amenity area on the ninth floor within the tower element to the north.
21Ms. Shiell stated a total of seven residential rental replacement units have been proposed within the building, replacing the existing six residential rental units by providing a full replacement of the total existing rental gross floor area on site. The rental replacement units will be located in the northeast corner of the second floor, and include two one-bedroom units, three two-bedroom units, and two three-bedroom units. As previously mentioned, under s. 111 of the City of Toronto Act (Chapter 667 of the Municipal Code), an application for Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion was filed in December 2020. The Applicant continues to work with City Staff to finalize the details of the Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application which will ultimately require approval by City Council. City Council approval of the Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application shall be a condition of the final Order on the Zoning By-law Amendment application.
22The Tribunal was informed that ten affordable housing rental units, with a total approximate gross floor area of 508 m2 (i.e. 5,500 square feet) will be provided as an in-kind contribution under the Community Benefits Charge. The affordable housing rental units will generally be located within the southeast corner of the second floor of the building and include two studio units, six one-bedroom units, and two two-bedroom units. These units will be provided with rents secured for 30 years at 100% of the average market rent for the City of Toronto in accordance with the definition of “affordable rents” in the City’s Official Plan at the time of the Original Application (defined as gross monthly rent no greater than one times the average City of Toronto rent by unit type, as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation).
Summary Opinion
23Ms. Shiell opined:
The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is appropriate and desirable in land use planning and urban design terms and should be approved.
The proposed development will fit harmoniously with the existing and planned built form context and will enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site which is well served by existing and planned municipal infrastructure, including higher-order public transit.
The Settlement Proposal will optimize the use of the Subject Site and will support growth in a manner that is compatible with the existing and planned built form context.
24Ms. Shiell opined that the proposal will support the achievement of numerous policy directions promoting intensification within built-up urban areas and the efficient use of land, particularly in locations that are well served by municipal infrastructure, including existing surface transit and planned higher-order transit.
25Ms. Shiell opined that the Zoning By-law Amendment as reflected in the Settlement Plans conforms with the Apartment Neighbourhoods policy direction of the Official Plan. Though built-up Apartment Neighbourhoods are considered stable areas where significant growth is not anticipated on a city-wide basis, opportunities exist for additional apartments on underutilized sites subject to appropriate development criteria as identified in s. 4.2 of the Official Plan. In this regard, the redevelopment of the Subject Site with a residential apartment building is compatible with the applicable land use designation. The residential intensification on the Subject Site will optimize the use of land and infrastructure, and in particular, existing and planned higher-order transit by providing new housing opportunities in a transit-supportive and compact built form, directly supporting the policy directions of the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”) and the City of Toronto Official Plan (“Official Plan”).
26Further, the proposed development represents an appropriate form of residential intensification in a location that is well-suited for redevelopment. The proposed level of intensification is appropriate given the proximity of the Subject Site to municipal infrastructure, including public transit and planned higher-order transit, as well as the wide array of recreation, cultural and community uses within the area.
27The Tribunal heard that from an urban design perspective, the proposed built form, setbacks, and height of development appropriately conform to the policies of the Official Plan and address the relevant Council-approved guidelines with respect to tall building development. The proposed form, setbacks, and height of development are appropriate and compatible with the physical (both existing and planned) context of the surrounding area.
28The Subject Site is located on the edge of an existing Apartment Neighbourhood characterised by mid- and high-rise buildings and is well separated from shadow sensitive areas, the most notable of which is the low-rise Neighbourhoods to the south along the south side of Gowan Avenue. The mid-rise scale proposed along Gowan Avenue and high-rise scale proposed along Cosburn Avenue allow for appropriate transition of scale towards lower-density Neighbourhoods and the mitigation of any potential visual and/or shadowing impacts.
29The Tribunal heard the proposed tower will be well separated from Neighbourhoods such that it is located approximately 54.4 m north of the closest Neighbourhoods-designated lands. Further, the proposed tower will be well separated from other existing and future potential towers on adjacent properties and provide setbacks and separation from existing tall buildings that meet the intent of the Tall Building Design Guidelines. The proposed tower will be well-articulated and sized to fit with the existing and planned built form context, with an appropriately sized floor plate that is well within the range of proposed and existing floor plate sizes in the area and will not result in any unacceptable built form impacts on surrounding properties, streets, parks, or open space. The Shadow Study undertaken by Bousfields Inc., demonstrates that the incremental shadows created by the Settlement Proposal will satisfy the applicable Official Plan policy tests and recommendations.
30The Tribunal was informed the Settlement Proposal will contribute to the enhancement and vitality of the surrounding public realm and open space network through the incorporation of the proposed public park along the Gowan Avenue frontage, in addition to the landscaped open space and pedestrian walkway linking Cosburn Avenue to the proposed public park. These open spaces will animate the public realm, which will be further activated by the proposed at-grade residential uses (i.e. amenity spaces in the north and grade-related entries to residential units in the south). Parking, loading and other service functions of the development will be located away from the public realm to minimize any potential visual impact.
31Ms. Shiell testified that the goal of the Official Plan “is to appropriately balance and reconcile a range of diverse objectives affecting land use planning in the City.” Ms. Shiell opined the proposed development achieves an appropriate balance among the applicable planning objectives, including transit-supportive intensification, increased housing supply, and built form impacts.
32Ms. Shiell further opined that the Zoning By-law Amendment as reflected in the Settlement Plans should be approved in principle, subject to the finalization of the form and content contained therein to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.
Policy and Regulatory Context
Planning Act (“Act”)
33Section 2 of the Act requires decision makers, in carrying out their responsibilities under the Act, to have regard to identified matters of provincial interest.
34Ms. Shiell opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest, in particular:
Subsection (h): the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
Subsection (j): the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
Subsection (p): the appropriate location of growth and development;
Subsection (q): the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; and
Subsection (r): 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.
35Ms. Shiell further provided, that the Settlement Proposal optimizes the use of land and infrastructure in a transit-supportive location with an existing mid-rise and tall building context, provides for a variety of housing forms and tenures, and incorporates the creation of a new public park at the southwest corner of the Subject Site.
Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”)
36Ms. Shiell stated, that one of the key policy directions expressed in the PPS is to build strong communities by promoting efficient development and land use patterns. To that end, Part V of the PPS contains a number of policies that promote intensification, redevelopment, and compact built form, particularly in areas well served by public transit.
37Ms. Shiell opined that the Zoning By-law Amendment as reflected in the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS, as read as a whole, and in particular, policies promoting efficient use of land and infrastructure, supporting a broader mix of uses to meet long-term needs, promoting a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities in a compact form, and supporting the use of active transportation and transit.
38Ms. Shiell provided the opinion that in consideration of the location of the Subject Site in proximity to existing frequent transit service and planned higher-order transit and services, it is my opinion that the Subject Site is an ideal location for residential intensification consistent with the direction of the PPS. Furthermore, the Settlement Proposal will contribute to the range of housing options in the city by providing new rental housing within a compact built form that will make efficient use of the land and surrounding infrastructure. The proposed public park and open space elements contribute to the promotion of healthy active communities and encourage recreation and opportunities for social interaction.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”)
39Ms. Shiell opined that the Zoning By-law Amendment as reflected within the Settlement Proposal conforms to the Growth Plan and, in particular, the policies encouraging growth and intensification in “strategic growth areas”, supporting transit service and active transportation, encouraging a diverse range and mix of housing options and land uses in a compact built form, providing for a vibrant public realm, and contributing to the achievement of complete communities.
40The Subject Site is within a delineated “strategic growth area” as defined by the Growth Plan as it is located within a “major transit station area” (“MTSA”), which the Growth Plan defines as “the area including and around any existing or planned higher order transit station or stop within a settlement area; or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 to 800 m radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk.”
41Ms. Shiell provided the opinion that in consideration of the location of the Subject Site within a major transit station area and in proximity to a priority transit corridor, and considering the policies cited above, it is my opinion that the Subject Site is an ideal location to accommodate significant residential intensification. Furthermore, the Settlement Proposal will contribute to the creation of complete communities by providing new housing in a manner that is compact, transit-supportive, and makes effective use of investments in infrastructure and public service facilities.
City of Toronto Official Plan (“Official Plan”)
42Ms. Shiell opined that the Zoning By-law Amendment, as reflected in the Settlement Proposal, conforms to the Official Plan, in particular the policies of the applicable Apartment Neighbourhoods designation, as well as policies related to growth management, built form, and housing.
43The Subject Site is designated Apartment Neighbourhoods on Map 17 – Land Use Plan of the Official Plan. Lands to the immediate west, north, and east of the Subject Site are also designated Apartment neighbourhoods, and lands on the south side of Gowan Avenue are designated Neighbourhoods.
44Ms. Shiell opined that the Subject Site is well suited to accommodate residential intensification as proposed given its location within the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation and within a delineated MTSA. In this regard, the Subject Site is one of the remaining sites within the surrounding Apartment Neighbourhoods that can accommodate intensification (subject to the development criteria outlined in s. 4.2 of the Official Plan), while also taking advantage of the existing frequent transit service along Broadview Avenue. In addition, the Subject Site will be well served by higher order transit with the Ontario Line and the proximity of the future Cosburn Station, and situated within an urban context that includes numerous existing mid-rise and tall buildings. In my opinion, the proposed level of intensification will support the objectives of the Official Plan’s growth management strategy and will not result in any unacceptable adverse impact on the public realm nor lands designated Neighbourhoods.
45Ms. Shiell further opined, that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the criteria for development in Apartment Neighbourhoods in s. 4.2(2) as well as the general public realm and built form policies set out in the Official Plan, in particular ss. 3.1.1(2), 3.1.1(13), 3.1.1(14), 3.1.1(15), 3.1.1(18), 3.1.1(19), 3.1.3(1), 3.1.3(2), 3.1.3(3), 3.1.3(4), 3.1.3(5), 3.1.3(6), 3.1.3(7), 3.1.3(9), 3.1.3(10), 3.1.3(11), 3.1.3(13), 3.1.4(8), 3.1.4(9), 3.1.4(10), 3.1.4(11), 3.1.4(12).
46Ms. Shiell further provided that the Settlement Proposall will:
Incorporate a podium base which is located parallel to and addressing the two adjacent street frontages;
ocate the primary building entrance such that it is clearly visible and directly accessible from the public sidewalk along Cosburn Avenue;
Provide ground floor uses that will animate the adjacent public realm, including indoor amenity area, lobby space along Cosburn Avenue and grade-related residential units with entries and private patios along Gowan Avenue;
Enhance the public realm and increase connectivity through the Subject Site through the provision of on-site parkland dedication along Gowan Avenue, with a pedestrian connection linking the open space to Cosburn Avenue in the north;
Locate and screen service areas, ramps, and garbage storage by internalizing all of these functions within the building centrally within the Subject Site;
Provide an attractive, comfortable and safe pedestrian environment, minimizing the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians by incorporating a single driveway entrance to the site from Cosburn Avenue;
Locate parking exclusively underground;
Maintain adequate access to sunlight and sky view and adequately limit any resulting shadowing or uncomfortable wind conditions from within the surrounding public realm;
Incorporate public realm improvements to enhance the streetscape and make for a more attractive and comfortable pedestrian experience;
Incorporate shared indoor and outdoor amenity spaces for residents in the new development;
Provide for a podium base building that fits within the context of existing nearby buildings, will frame the adjacent streets and open space with good proportion and is of a pedestrian scale;
Incorporate stepbacks above the base building to reduce the physical and visual impacts of the building from within the public realm;
Feature a tower element that provides appropriate setback from lot lines and separation distances to other adjacent buildings;
Include distinctive architectural characteristics as part of the tower and tower top and incorporates the mechanical penthouse into the design of the tower.
47With respect to the rental replacement component of the Settlement Proposal, s. 3.2.1 of the Official Plan provides direction on housing matters.
48Ms. Shiell testified the Settlement Proposal will replace the existing six rental units with the seven rental units with rents at similar rent levels (i.e. affordable or mid-range) for a period of at least 10 years and generally the same mix of unit types, providing a full replacement of the total existing rental gross floor area on site. The Settlement Proposal locates the seven residential rental replacement units on site within the northeast corner of the second floor, including two one-bedroom units, three two-bedroom units, and two three-bedroom units.
49Further, the Applicant will continue to work with City Staff to finalize the details of the Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application, including an acceptable tenant relocation and assistance plan, which will ultimately require approval by City Council. City Council approval of the Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Application shall be a condition of the Final Order on the Zoning By-law Amendment application.
Zoning By-law
50Ms. Shiell provided that under the Former East York Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, the Subject Site is zoned R3A (High Density Residential Zone). The R3A zone permits the contemplated residential apartment dwelling amongst other residential land uses. As it relates to apartment buildings, the R3A zone provides for the following provisions:
i. a maximum floor space index of 2.0;
ii. a maximum lot coverage of 75%;
iii. a minimum front yard setback of 2.4 m;
iv. a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 m; and a minimum side yard setback of 3 m.
v. a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 m;
vi. a minimum front yard setback of 6 m;
vii. a minimum separation distance of 5.5 m where there are no windows and 11.0 m where there are windows for any portion of a building with a height equal to 11 m or less; and
viii. for any portion of the building greater than 11 m, a minimum distance equal to the average height of the main walls.
51Ms. Shiell stated that based on the forgoing, the apartment building typology and building height permitted for the Subject Site demonstrates the contemplation of taller, more intense built form that is more reflective of the surrounding Apartment Neighbourhood context than what currently exists on site.
52According to Ms. Shiell, the Settlement Proposal aligns with the push for more concentrated development on the Subject Site. Ms. Shiell further opined that the Application as reflected in the Settlement Proposal is appropriate, desirable and implements the overarching policy direction applicable to the Subject Site by intensifying an underutilized site with a compact built form that is compatible with its existing and planned context, and which will optimize an underutilized site that is well served by municipal infrastructure, including existing frequent transit and planned higher order transit.
Urban Design Guidelines
53On May 7, 2013, City Council adopted the City-wide Tall Building Design Guidelines (March 2013), which updated and replaced the “Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Building Proposals” (2006) and consolidated the Downtown Tall Building Guidelines, which were originally adopted by Council in July 2012.
54Ms. Shiell opined that the Settlement Proposal has appropriate regard for the Citywide Tall Building Design Guidelines. In this respect, the proposal generally meets the minimum tower setback of 12.5 m to abutting property lines and centre lines of adjacent streets, which will allow for a tower separation distance of at least 25 m and more from adjacent properties. Further, the Settlement Proposal provides for an appropriate fit and transition down in scale to the low-rise residential area to the south by situating the tower far north within the Subject Site. The southernmost point of the tower is approximately 54.4 m north of the Neighbourhoods to the south. In this regard, the tower element has been located and massed so as to protect access to sunlight and sky view from within and to limit shadow impacts on the surrounding context. In addition to spatially separating the tower from nearby low-rise areas, the Settlement Proposal steps down in height from the northerly tower to the southerly mid-rise element along Gowan Avenue, accommodating the appropriate fit and transition of the building within the Subject Site.
Conclusions and Recommendations
55Ms. Shiell provided the opinion that the application as reflected in the Settlement Proposal has regard for relevant matters of Provincial interest set out in the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City of Toronto Official Plan, is in keeping with the guidance provided within the City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines, and is in accordance with the Settlement accepted by City Council.
56The Subject Site is an ideal location for residential intensification as permitted by the City of Toronto Official Plan which allows for redevelopment on underutilized sites that can accommodate intensification (without specific height or density limitations) within Apartment Neighbourhoods.
57Ms. Shiell opined the Settlement Proposal will appropriately intensify an underutilized site within a delineated MTSA and Apartment Neighbourhood which has an existing mid-rise and tall building context and is well served by existing frequent transit service and planned higher order transit, while providing a range of housing choices and contributing to the achievement of complete communities.
58Ms. Shiell further opined the Settlement Proposal is sensitive to its surrounding context, situating taller building elements away from areas of lower scale and intensity, providing a building mass that fits harmoniously within its existing and planned context. To that end, the Settlement Proposal provides appropriate setbacks from the street and abutting property lines, animates both street frontages with active at grade residential uses, enhances and expands the public realm through the on-site parkland dedication, and locates parking, servicing, and loading functions internally within the building envelope, screening such uses from public view.
59Ms. Shiell concluded with the opinion that the Application as reflected in the Settlement Plans represents good planning and urban design and should be approved.
60Ms. Shiell recommended that the Tribunal grants, in part, the appeal of the Zoning By-Law Amendment application but withholds its final Order until:
The proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment instruments are in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;
City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application 20 232889 STE 14 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 the six existing rental dwelling units at 8 Gowan Avenue, 10 Gowan Avenue, 17 Cosburn Avenue, and 19 Cosburn Avenue and 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;
The Owner has entered into the In-kind Contribution Agreement pursuant to s. 37(7.1) of the Act to secure the in-kind contribution of 10 affordable rental housing units pursuant to s. 37(6) of the Act;
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 Zoning By-law Amendment;
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
The Owner has provided an updated pedestrian level wind study based on wind tunnel analysis and a Toronto Green Standard template and statistics, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner & Executive Director, City Planning.
FINDINGS
61The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted testimony and evidence of Ms. Shiell.
62The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal will fit harmoniously with the existing and planned built form context and will enhance the area by intensifying a site that is well served with municipal infrastructure.
63The Settlement Proposal will be an efficient use of the land and will support the achievement of the PPS and Growth Plan policy directions promoting intensification within a built-up urban area. The Settlement Proposal will result in a desirable mixed-use intensification project having convenient access to transit, while incorporating and providing a range of housing types in terms of unit size and number of bedrooms.
64The Tribunal accepts the submission of Ms. Shiell and is satisfied that the Settlement Proposed will create a high-quality addition to the area.
65In contemplation of the submissions of Ms. Shiells and the revisions to the proposal resulting in the Settlement Proposal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBLA has sufficient and proper regard for those matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the ZBLA is consistent with the PPS, conform to the policies of the Growth Plan and are appropriate and desirable from a land use planning perspective and represent good land use planning.
ORDER
66THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS on an interim basis that:
The above-noted appeal is allowed, in part, and the proposed development of the lands in accordance with the plans attached as Exhibit “M” to the Affidavit of Ms. Roxy Shiell, filed with the Tribunal as Exhibit 1, is approved in principle;
The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order pending written confirmation from the Parties that:
i. The proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment instruments are in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;
ii. City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application 20 232889 STE 14 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 the six existing rental dwelling units at 8 Gowan Avenue, 10 Gowan Avenue, 17 Cosburn Avenue, and 19 Cosburn Avenue and 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;
iii. The Owner has entered into the In-kind Contribution Agreement pursuant to s. 37(7.1) of the Planning Act to secure the in-kind contribution of 10 affordable rental housing units pursuant to s. 37(6) of the Planning Act;
iv. 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 Zoning By-law Amendment;
v. 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
vi. The Owner has provided an updated pedestrian level wind study based on wind tunnel analysis and a Toronto Green Standard template and statistics, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner & Executive Director, City Planning.
- The Tribunal Member remains seized for the issuance of a Final Order and with respect to such outstanding matters relating to this Interim Order and may be spoken to in the event that there are difficulties in satisfying the above conditions for the issuance of the Tribunal's Final Order in respect of the above-mentioned appeal.
“Carmine Tucci”
CARMINE TUCCI
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.