Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 08, 2023 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003301

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

Applicant/Appellant: Blauson Assets Management Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a new residential building comprised of a five-storey podium above which are the 25-storey West Tower (Tower A) and the 29-storey East Tower (Tower B) Reference Number: 20 118393 ESC 20 OZ Property Address: 320 McCowan Road Municipality/UT: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003301 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003301 OLT Case Name: Blauson Assets Management Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Applicant/Appellant: Blauson Assets Management Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Description: To Permit a new residential building comprised of a five-storey podium above which are the 25-storey West Tower (Tower A) and the 29-storey East Tower (Tower B) Reference Number: 21 198274 ESC 20 SA Property Address: 320 McCowan Road Municipality/UT: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003302 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003301

Heard: August 30, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Blauson Assets Management Ltd. (“Appellant”)	J. Park, O. Rasekhi
City of Toronto (“City”)	M. Piel
D. Crupi and Sons Ltd. (“Crupi”)	D. White

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM MIDDLETON ON AUGUST 30, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION

1This Hearing was convened for the presentation of a settlement for the approval of the Tribunal, as the result of an overall resolution achieved by the Parties.

2Subsequent to its first application, the Appellant then sought approval for a new residential building comprised of a five-storey podium, above which are the 25-storey West Tower (Tower A) and the 29-storey East Tower (Tower B), at the property municipally known as 320 McCowan Road in the City (“Development”). Further revisions were later proposed as is discussed in more detail below in paragraph [5].

3The materials before the Tribunal were the following:

(a) Affidavit of Lindsay Dale-Harris, sworn August 23, 2023, comprising 60 pages, marked as Exhibit 1;

(b) Visual Evidence Book, comprising 18 pages, marked as Exhibit 2;

(c) Joint Document Book, in two volumes, comprising a total of 3031 pages, marked as Exhibit 3A and 3B respectively; and,

(d) Draft Interim Order plus attachments, comprising a total of 27 pages.

PART 2 - ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL AND EVIDENCE

4With the consent of the Parties, Ms. Dale-Harris was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence on land use planning matters concerning the proposed settlement.

5In her Affidavit and oral evidence, Ms. Dale-Harris stated that:

(a) Her firm, Bousfields, was retained by the Applicant in July 2019 to provide land use planning and urban design services for the property municipally known as 320 McCowan Road (“Subject Site”). She has had primary carriage of planning matters pertaining to the proposed Development;

(b) The Subject Site is the Site is located southwest of the Eglinton Avenue East and McCowan Road intersection and is occupied by a 19-storey apartment building, in addition to a four-storey above-grade parking structure and a single-storey stand-alone amenity building. The property owned by Crupi is located on Brimley Road, to the southwest of the Subject Site;

(c) Bousfields submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment Application to the City, proposing amendments to City-wide By-law 569-2013, as amended, and Eglinton Community By-law 10048, as amended, to facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Site with an infill residential building (“Original Proposal”);

(d) The Original Proposal proposed to demolish the existing four-storey above-grade parking structure on the south side of the Subject Site and to construct a new residential building containing two towers of 27 and 31 storeys (93.6 and 107.5 metres, including mechanical penthouse) atop a shared seven-storey podium, which included six storeys of above grade parking. The Original Proposal included a total of 520 dwelling units and 64,664 square metres of residential gross floor area (“GFA”). The existing 19-storey residential building, and the one-storey amenity building, were proposed to be retained;

(e) In June, 2021, a revised proposal was submitted to the City, which continued to provide for the redevelopment of the Site with a residential building containing two towers; however, the tower heights were reduced to 25 and 29 storeys (87.9 and 100.7 metres, including mechanical penthouse), with the shared podium being reduced to six storeys (“Revised Proposal”). Other notable changes to the Revised Proposal were an increased front yard setback, and the introduction of a series of stepback terraces at the northwest corner of the base building, from Levels 2 to 6. Several changes were also made to the programming of the ground floor, including the provision of a centralized vehicle and loading access. Overall, a total of 483 dwelling units and 56,316 square metres of residential GFA were proposed, resulting in a reduced density of 5.0 Floor Space Index (“FSI”);

(f) The Owner appealed the Rezoning Application and SPA Application to the OLT on March 28, 2022, due to the City Council’s failure to make a decision on the Applications within the time period set out in the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (“Act”);

(g) Following the appeal, the Owner and members of its consulting team, including Ms. Dale-Harris, continued to have discussions with City Staff between March, 2022 and April, 2023, to resolve the issues raised by Community Planning and Urban Forestry, amongst other technical matters. Eventually, counsel for the Appellant submitted on May 30, 2023 to the City a proposed offer to settle the appeal. On June 14 and 15, 2023, City Council adopted recommendations contained in a confidential City Solicitor’s Request for Direction Report, dated May 31, 2023, accepting the without prejudice settlement offer (“Settlement Proposal”);

(h) The Settlement Proposal, provides for the redevelopment of the southern portion of the Subject Site with two towers of 25 and 29 storeys (87.9 and 100.7 metres, including mechanical penthouse), sited on top of a shared six-storey (24.3 metre) base building. The Settlement Proposal continues to provide for the retention of the existing 19-storey residential apartment building and one-storey amenity building on the site. The Zoning By-law Amendments to City-wide By-law 569-2013 and Eglinton Community By-law 10048 include site-specific provisions to permit the Settlement Proposal;

(i) At grade, the Settlement Proposal provides for a mix of residential uses, including dwelling units and lobby areas. The north façade of the podium, facing the shared driveway, will be occupied primarily by dwelling units and by two building lobbies flanking the central vehicle/loading access. The building’s east elevation is proposed to contain a second residential lobby access, a bicycle repair station, a bicycle lobby and short-term bicycle parking room facing an outdoor amenity area. The west elevation will consist primarily of above-grade parking and the management office. A pet-amenity area is proposed in the west side yard;

(j) The towers have been designed so that there will be no west facing views. In particular, the west elevation of Tower A has been designed with a “jigsaw”-like articulation, whereby all units along the west side of the floor plate will have windows facing north only. Moreover, west facing units within Tower B will face directly towards Tower A, preventing any further west facing views. As per the Minutes of Settlement with Crupi, full height wing walls have been provided along the western edge of all the south facing balconies proposed in both Tower A and B, to prevent any west facing views;

(k) The Settlement Proposal provides for a total GFA of 56,102 square metres within the new building, comprised entirely of residential GFA (required amenity areas are excluded from the residential GFA). The proposed GFA, combined with the existing GFA in the existing building (28,548 square metres), results in a density of approximately 5.0 FSI, for the gross site area;

(l) The Settlement Proposal is supportive of numerous policy directions articulated in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”), and the City’s Official Plan, all of which promote the intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure, particularly in locations in proximity to higher order transit, well served by community amenities;

(m) From a land use perspective, the Settlement Proposal conforms with the objectives of the Subject Site’s Mixed Use Areas designation in the Official Plan. The increased residential population on will support the existing array of retail shops and community services in the area, and will re-urbanize an underutilized portion of the Site with new residential uses;

(n) From a built form and urban design perspective, the Settlement Proposal has been carefully organized, sited and massed in a manner that responds appropriately to the surrounding context, in addition to the characteristics of the Site; notably, the Site’s size, unique orientation and built form adjacencies;

(o) The proposed intensification of the existing above-grade parking structure is appropriate, and the Settlement Proposal has been designed to be in keeping with the Official Plan’s public realm and built form policies, as well as having appropriate regard to the City’s urban design guidelines;

(p) The Settlement Proposal is an appropriate and desirable use in land use planning and urban design terms. It will facilitate a development that is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, has appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Act, and applicable urban design guidelines, represents good planning and is in the public interest; and,

(q) The revised draft Zoning By-law Amendments to Eglinton Community By-law 10048, as amended, and City-wide By-law 569-2013, as amended, have been prepared to reflect the Settlement Proposal. Given the recent settlement, the City has not yet had the opportunity to undertake a technical review of the revised draft Zoning By-law Amendments.

PART 3 - CONCLUSIONS

6Based on the uncontradicted opinion evidence of Ms. Dale-Harris as described in Part 2 above, provided on the consent of the Parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal is fair and reasonable and: satisfies all matters of provincial interest under subsection 2(1) of the Act and conforms to all policy statements as required under subsection 3(1) of the Act; is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, conforms to the City’s Official Plan; meets the intent and purposes of the City’s Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and of former City of Scarborough Eglinton Community Zoning By-law No. 10048; and respects principles of good planning.

INTERIM ORDERS

7THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS ON AN INTERIM BASIS THAT the appeal of the zoning by-law amendment application made by the Appellant is allowed in part and approves, in principle, the Zoning By-law Amendment appended hereto as Attachment 1 but withholds its final Order amending the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, subject to the satisfaction of the matters set out below in paragraph [9].

8THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS ON AN INTERIM BASIS THAT the appeal of the zoning by-law amendment application made by the Appellant is allowed in part and approves in principle, the Zoning By-law Amendment appended hereto as Attachment 2 but withholds its final Order amending the former City of Scarborough Eglinton Community Zoning By-law No. 10048, subject to the satisfaction of the matters set out below in paragraph [9].

9As described above in paragraphs [7] and [8], the Tribunal’s final Order amending the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and the former City of Scarborough Eglinton Community Zoning By-law No. 10048 to permit the development reflected in the Settlement Proposal presented to the Tribunal is withheld until the Tribunal has been advised in writing by the City Solicitor that the outstanding matters, listed below, have been completed:

(a) The form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendments are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(b) The Appellant has provided a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(c) The Appellant has financially and legally secured any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, should it be determined by that Report that improvements to such infrastructure are required to support the Development, then to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(d) The Appellant has submitted revised drawings, which confirm the development complies with the Toronto Green Standards, Version 3, Tier 1, Ecology Section, EC 1.1, to the satisfaction of the City’s Urban Forestry department;

(e) The Appellant has delivered an Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment for the lands, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and,

(f) The Appellant has delivered an interim parking plan and executed agreements with parking facility operators that secure off-site parking for the duration of construction, satisfactory to the City’s General Manager, Transportation Services.

10THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

(a) The site plan appeal commenced by the Appellants shall be adjourned sine die to allow the City and the Appellant to finalize the notice of approval conditions for site plan approval and to provide them to the Tribunal;

(b) If the Parties have not sought approval from the Tribunal of the Final Orders, described above in paragraph [9] by January 10, 2024, the Parties shall deliver a status report to the Tribunal in respect of the underlying reasons for this; and,

(c) In the event that by March 1, 2024 the Tribunal has neither approved the Final Orders described above in paragraph [9] nor received the status report described in paragraph [10] (b) above, the Tribunal may dismiss all of the appeals in this proceeding without further notice to the Parties.

11This Vice Chair shall remain available to assist the Parties with the implementation of the Orders made above, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

“William Middleton”

WILLIAM MIDDLETON 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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2