Adelaide Nelson Residences LP v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 92333

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 05, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002453

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Multiple Appellants

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 486 King Spadina Secondary Plan

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002453

Legacy Case No.: PL200186

OLT File No.: OLT-22-002453

Legacy File No.: PL200186

OLT Case Name: Adelaide Nelson Residences LP v. Toronto (City)

Heard: August 14 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

City of Toronto

Daniel Elmadany

Appellants 7, 9, 12, 17 and 18

Appellant 20

Appellant 37

Appellant 38

Meaghan Barrett

Andrew Jeanrie

Julie Lesage

Michael Cara

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON AUGUST 14, 2023 BY S. deBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal had originally scheduled a 12-day hearing to hear the merits of the appeals by various Appellants concerning the City of Toronto’s (“City”) adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (“OPA 486”) on January 9, 2020. OPA 486 may be referred to as the King-Spadina Secondary Plan (“KSSP”) in this decision.

2As a result of the adopted OPA 486, multiple appeals were filed before the Tribunal concerning OPA 486.

3Multiple Case Management Conferences (“CMC”) have been held since the time of the original appeal filings in 2020. These CMCs had led to multiple settlements with some of the Appellants. Other appeals had been determined to be site-specific and those specific appeals would be heard individually sine die on their concerns. This merit hearing was to deal with the overall issues that the above Appellants had concerning OPA 486.

4Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence from the City advising that the Parties have reached a settlement on the issues and was making a request that the merit hearing be converted to a settlement hearing.

5In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the settlement.

6When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“the Act”), the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act. S. 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”) and, in this case, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”).

7In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Application represents good planning and is in the public interest.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

8The KSSP Area forms the western edge of the Downtown Toronto area and is bounded by Bathurst Street on the west, the properties fronting the north side of Richmond Street West on the north, Simcoe Street on the east up to King Street West and John Street up to Front Street West, Front Street West on the south side with the exception of the area between Simcoe and John streets where the south boundary is King Street West and the area between Draper Street and Spadina Avenue where the south boundary is Wellington Street West.

9The KSSP area is surrounded by the Queen Street Heritage Conservation District (HCD) on the north, the Financial District on the east and partially on the south, the Railway Lands East, Central and West Secondary Plan Areas as well as the Garrison Common North Secondary Plan Area.

10The KSSP area is divided into three Precincts, with each area reinforcing and respecting the historical development and surrounding context of the Precinct:

West Precinct – covers the King-Spadina Secondary Plan area west of Spadina Avenue, exclusive of the Spadina Precinct. This Precinct has a distinct character defined by its historic buildings, historic parks and lower scale of development than the East Precinct. Consistent with the Downtown Plan, properties in this Precinct are designated Mixed-Use Areas 2 – Intermediate. Two parks in this area, Victoria Memorial Square and St. Andrew's Playground, are designated Parks in the Official Plan.

Spadina Precinct – covers both sides of Spadina Avenue between the north side of Clarence Square on the south and properties fronting the south side of Richmond Street West in the north. Development is planned to be generally mid- rise in scale, informed by the width of the Spadina Avenue right-of-way. Consistent with the Downtown Plan, properties in this Precinct are designated Mixed-Use Areas 3 – Main Street.

East Precinct – covers the King-Spadina Secondary Plan area east of Spadina Avenue, exclusive of the Spadina Precinct. The tallest buildings in the King- Spadina Secondary Plan area are planned to be located in the eastern portion of the East Precinct. Consistent with the Downtown Plan, properties in this Precinct are designated Mixed-Use Areas 1 – Growth with the exception of the properties fronting Richmond Street West and surrounding Clarence Square which, also consistent with the Downtown Plan, are designated Mixed Use Areas 2. The properties on the east side of Spadina Avenue north of Richmond Street West and on both sides of Spadina Avenue, from the north side of Clarence Square are also designated Mixed Use Areas 2. Clarence Square itself is designated Parks in the Official Plan.

SUBMISSIONS

11Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents and submitted said documents as exhibits to the hearing:

Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Service by Cindy Cheung

Exhibit 2 Notice of Motion to Approve by the City of Toronto

Exhibit 3 Draft Order

12On behalf of the Parties, the City presented Joanna Kimont, a Senior Planner with the City and one of the lead land use planners involved with OPA 486. Ms. Kimont was affirmed and qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning concerning OPA 486.

13Ms. Kimont took the Tribunal through the OPA process and specifically through the process of OPA 486 itself. Ms. Kimont gave details as to the consultations and public meetings that were held through the OPA process. Ms. Kimont was an integral member of City Staff throughout the OPA process.

14OPA 486 was adopted by City Council on January 29, 2020. OPA 486 replaced the previous KSSP that had been in effect since 1996. Updates to the KSSP were deemed necessary to recognize the growth and regeneration of the area from mostly non-residential uses to that of a mixed-use area.

15There were a total of 46 appeals that were brought to the Tribunal after approval of OPA 486. Through the Tribunal process, the City engaged in mediation discussions with the Appellants without prejudice in order to resolve matters. Through mediation, certain agreements were made with some of the Appellants on their issues.

16As a result of the mediation between the City and the Appellants, five appeals were withdrawn and twenty-two appeals were adjourned sine die to focus on site-specific development applications.

17As a result of further discussions prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Appellants listed above were the only OPA 486 Appellants remaining. Through further discussions, these Appellants were able to come to an agreement with the City concerning OPA 486.

18As such, the issue before the Tribunal is approving OPA 486 as presented.

19A Motion to approve OPA 486 was presented to the Tribunal by the City with the consent of the Appellants that were present at settlement hearing. This motion was a request to the Tribunal to orally approve OPA 486 as presented before it. The Motion included the affidavit of Ms. Kimont, a senior planner with the City who has carriage of OPA 486 throughout the OPA process.

Planning Evidence

20Ms. Kimont gave further background information concerning the history of the KSSP and the need for updating the KSSP to reflect the changes of the neighbourhood and the direction of the City concerning the KSSP.

21OPA 486 must be considered by the Tribunal as a comprehensive whole and in the context of the City of Toronto’s Official Plan. Ms. Kimont asserted the primary focus of the changes to the KSSP are in the following areas:

(a) Section 1 – Interpretation;

(b) Section 2 – Vision;

(c) Section 3 – Objectives;

(d) Section 6 – Built Form;

(e) Section 7 – Areas of Special Identity;

(f) Section 8 – Implementation.

22Since the adoption of OPA 486, the City utilized Tribunal-led mediation to resolve and narrow the concerns with OPA 486. This has resulted in modifications to OPA 486, inter alia are listed below:

Policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 requiring a 3 metre or greater step back above the base building on all elevations facing a public street, Policy 6.11 and 6.12.1 regarding height limits in the West Precinct of 50 metres and 55 metres, Policy 6.12.2 was added to provide further flexibility to consider minor increases in height under very specific circumstances, Policy 6.14 respecting the provision of a 5.5 metre step back above the base building from adjacent properties to provide separation distances between buildings, Policy 7.5 regarding servicing areas not being visible from St. Andrew's Playground, Policy 7.8.3 the word "generally" before the requirement of a 10 metre setback above the street wall or base building in Wellington Place, Policy 7.13 using the word "generally" before numeric step back along Duncan Street frontage and changing the number from 10 metres as adopted by Council to 6 metres, Policy 6.13 was revised to support a specific building typology in the West Precinct, and further minor clarifications in language in Policies 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.3, 3.1.4.3, 4.5, 6.8.3, 6.9, 6.10, 6.15, 6.17, 7.8.1, 7.8.2, 8.4.

23Further modifications include the deletion of minimum 25% non-residential use requirement, but maintaining the policy direction to provide non-residential gross floor area on the development sites to continue to ensure mixed use development is promoted in the Secondary Plan Area. Further modifications include the implementation of that in all circumstances, development has the opportunity to improve the public realm in a number of ways where it is deemed appropriate or necessary.

24Modifications were made to public realm enhancements. These include providing different opportunities depending on their locations, size and their relationship with adjacent properties, providing opportunities for future parks, Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces, generous landscaped areas, forecourts, wider sidewalks, and mid-block connections and creating a comprehensive network of parks and open spaces, including existing and planned parks and Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces. Development sites provide different opportunities for public realm enhancements. The size and use of these open spaces is not determined by the OPA, however, the proposal demonstrates potential locations for future public realm enhancements. For example, some development sites may provide opportunities for future parks and Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces, while some may only have the potential for front landscape area, forecourts and/or wider sidewalks and connections.

The [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

25With regard to the Act, Ms. Kimont’s opinion was that OPA 486 satisfies the matters of provincial interest that are relevant to this proposal. These interests are demonstrated through the Vision, Objectives and Built Form polices. The proposal supports the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, and the projected growth and intensification is appropriate for the area.

PPS 2020

26Concerning the PPS 2020, it was Ms. Kimont’s opinion that OPA 486 is consistent with the PPS 2020 as the proposal demonstrates the direction of creating a healthy, safe and livable community, through efficient land use, employment and housing opportunities while allowing appropriate intensification to occur. The use of existing infrastructure and public transportation will help promote long-term economic prosperity to the area.

27In Ms.Kimont’s opinion, the land use and projected intensification will provide a range of housing opportunities and provide for mixed-use opportunities that will be transit-supportive and make use of existing public service facilities. The proposal’s policies ensure that OPA 486 will continue to have an important economic role by continuing to diversify non-residential uses and create cultural spaces which have been historically important to the KSSP area.

Growth Plan

28It was Ms. Kimont’s opinion that OPA 486 conforms with the Growth Plan as one of the goals of OPA 486 is to achieve complete communities. The proposal provides a framework to achieve this goal through promoting a diverse range of housing options and promoting an efficient use of mixed uses. The proposal conforms with the Growth Plan as OPA 486 builds on the Downtown Plan and focuses on efficient use of existing infrastructure and efficient use of public transit.

29Ms. Kimont gave opinion that OPA 486 builds on top of the Downtown Plan and provides appropriate and clear policy directions to achieve the types and scale of built forms that will be contextually appropriate and will recognize the character of the three specific precincts while providing opportunities for appropriate intensification.

30Ms. Kimont opined that OPA 486 establishes direction that will take into consideration the heritage nature of the precincts and each new development will need to take these heritage issues into consideration to ensure that any new development proposal is an appropriate form and scale given its location.

City of Toronto Official Plan (“City’s OP”)

31Concerning the City’s OP and the Downtown Plan, it was Ms. Kimont’s opinion that OPA 486 will continue to conform to the policy direction of the City’s OP. OPA 486 updates the currently in-force Secondary Plan. These updates reflect the ongoing regeneration of the three precincts. The regeneration is due to the de-industrialization of the area and that the new needs of the area are more in the form of mixed-use. This mixed-use includes employment opportunities, mostly commercial in nature, and residential housing types.

32In Ms. Kimont’s opinion, the proposal before the Tribunal updates the existing and in-force secondary plan to reflect the current and future needs of the KSSP. OPA 486 conforms to the existing City’s OP while balancing the general intent and purpose of the Downtown Plan. In fact, OPA 486 builds upon and complements the Downtown Plan’s objectives.

33Ms. Kimont opined that OPA 486 conforms to Built Form policies of the City’s OP. OPA 486 will determine the scale of development involved with each precinct and will establish criteria inter alia related to base buildings, street wall conditions, base building transitions, vehicular access, and transition between precincts.

34In Ms. Kimont’s opinion, the proposal before the Tribunal conforms to the City’s OP and reflects the regeneration of the KSSP.

Downtown Secondary Plan

35In Ms. Kimont’s opinion, OPA 486 builds upon the City’s OP and the Downtown Secondary Plan. OPA 486 provides further detailed policies that meet the goals of the Downtown Secondary Plan. OPA 486 appropriately identifies lands to be designated as Mixed Use Areas 1, Mixed Use Areas 2, and Mixed Use Areas 3. These lands conform to the Downtown Secondary Plan’s policies and goals to achieve complete communities and liveability. The land use designations provided by the implementation of OPA 486 align appropriately with the land use designations in the Downtown Secondary Plan.

36Ms. Kimont gave opinion that OPA 486 conforms with and builds upon the general intent and direction of the Downtown Secondary Plan.

Summary of Opinion

37Ms. Kimont’s overall opinion was that the revised OPA 486 as presented before the Tribunal has regard for the relevant issues of provincial interest pertaining to s. 2 of the Act. The proposal before the Tribunal is consistent with the PPS 2020, conforms with the Growth Plan, and conforms to the general intent of the City’s OP and the Downtown Secondary Plan.

38Ms. Kimont’s opinion is that OPA 486 reflects the City’s objectives for Mixed Use Areas and aligns with the principles vision of the City’s OP, allows for appropriate transitions in height and scale to parks and neighbourhoods within the OPA area. OPA 486 provides a clear and consistent guidance for future development in the KSSP zone. OPA 486 promotes the optimal use of public transportation and plans for an overall active transportation network that will support a complete community.

39Ms. Kimont opined that the planned intensification projected through OPA 486 is appropriate and the level of the intensification in each specific precinct will allow appropriate density forms to be built that will promote a mix of housing types. The flexible policy directions through OPA 486 will ensure that built forms will not be in conflict with each other, will provide for a vibrant public realm and will help achieve complete communities.

40Ms. Kimont’s opinion was that the proposal before the Tribunal is in the public interest and represents good planning. The proposal should be approved as presented and the Tribunal should dismiss any remaining appeals that have not been adjourned previously sine die.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

41Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence in support of the settlement provided by Ms. Kimont, the Tribunal finds that the proposal before the Tribunal is a matter of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.

42The Tribunal finds that OPA 486 represents the changing demographics of the KSSP area. The Tribunal finds that OPA 486 represents the changing requirements from an industrial need to a residential and mixed-use need. The Tribunal finds that OPA 486 appropriately takes into account the projected population growth for the KSSP area and the specific requirements needed to accommodate the projected population growth.

43The Tribunal finds that the evidence provided demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the PPS 2020 and conforms with the Growth Plan.

44The Tribunal finds that the evidence has demonstrated that the proposal conforms with the general intent and purpose of the City’s OP as well as the City’s Downtown Secondary Plan.

45The Tribunals finds that the proposal meets the objectives, principles and vision of the City’s OP and the City’s Downtown Secondary Plan. The proposal reflects the growing need for intensification in the downtown core to meet the projected increase in the population forecasted for the City.

46The Tribunal finds that the proposal represents good land use planning.

47The Tribunal rules that the Motion to approve OPA 486 through an oral decision is granted.

ORDER

48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the un-highlighted sections and policies of Official Plan Amendment No. 486 to the City of Toronto Official Plan (contained in Attachment "A" to this Order, by operation of subsection 17(27) of the Planning Act, have come into effect on March 5, 2020.

49THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the purple highlighted sections and policies of Official Plan Amendment 486 included in Attachment “A” to this Order, came into force and effect on March 5, 2020 by operation of subsection 17(27) of the Planning Act, except as those parts as appealed on a site specific basis and adjourned in accordance with Tribunal Order dated April 4, 2022 (Schedule 5) and Tribunal Order dated June 21, 2022 in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002453 (former PL200186), and those remaining site specific appellants are set out in Attachment “B” to this Order.

50THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that pursuant to subsections 17(30), (30.1) and (50) of the Planning Act, the appeals of Official Plan Amendment 486 are allowed in part, and the green highlighted sections, non-policy text, policies and all Maps of Official Plan Amendment 486 are hereby approved, or approved as modified, inclusive of any appeals that have been withdrawn, as set out in Attachment "A" to this Order and have come into effect on August 14, 2023, subject to the site specific appeals for certain policies and maps of which remain under appeal as identified on a site specific basis in accordance with Tribunal Order dated April 4, 2022 (Schedule 5) and Tribunal Order dated June 21, 2022 in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002453 (former PL200186), and those remaining site specific appellants are set out in Attachment “B” to this Order.

51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the City of Toronto By-law No 921-2006 being a By-law "to adopt Amendment No. 2 of the Official Plan of the City of Toronto with respect to lands within the King-Spadina Secondary Plan (Section 16, Chapter 6)" is hereby repealed effective on August 14, 2023, except for the lands identified as scoped on a site and policy specific basis in accordance with Tribunal Order dated April 4, 2022 (Schedule 5) and Tribunal Order dated June 21, 2022 in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002453 (former PL200186) and those remaining site specific Appellants are set out in Attachment “B” to this Order.

52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the lands municipally known as 225 King Street West, 200 Wellington Street West and 60 Simcoe Street in the City of Toronto (the "Oxford Lands") are outside of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan Area as identified on Map 16-1. As such the policies of the King Spadina Secondary Plan and the identification of potential public realm improvements on Map 16-3A and Map 16-3B of the King Spadina Secondary Plan on the Oxford Lands are not determinative of any future development application on the Oxford Lands.

53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that this Order of the Tribunal made in these proceedings remains without prejudice to the disposition of the site and policy specific appeals as identified in Tribunal Order dated April 4, 2022 (Schedule 5) and Tribunal Order dated June 21, 2022, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002453 (former PL200186), which remaining site-specific appellants are set out in Attachment “B” to this Order.

54THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the remaining appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 486 that are not subject to Tribunal Order dated April 4, 2022 (Schedule 5) and Tribunal Order dated June 21, 2022, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002453 (former PL200186) are hereby dismissed.

“S. deBoer”

S. deBOER

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.