Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003672

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

Appellant: Timbercreek 4340 Bloor St. Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended–neglect of the City of Toronto

Existing Zoning: Residential Apartments (RA)(f24.9)(x67) u

Proposed Zoning: Residential Apartments (RA) (f24.9) (x67) u

Purpose: To permit a 16-storey apartment building

Property Address/Description: 4340 Bloor Street West

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipal File No.: 20 222977 WET 02 OZ

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003672

OLT File No.: OLT-22-003672

OLT Case Name: Timbercreek 4340 Bloor St. Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: June 5, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Timbercreek 4340 Bloor St. Inc.	Zachary Fleisher
City of Toronto	Lauren Pinder

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. Bobka. on June 5 2023 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Interim Order

INTRODUCTION

1This was a Settlement Hearing regarding an appeal by Timbercreek 4340 Bloor St. Inc. (“Applicant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the lack of decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) by the City of Toronto (“City”) for the property municipally known as 4340 Bloor Street West (“Subject Property”).

2The Toronto Lands Corporation (“TLC”), as agent for the Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”), was granted Party status by the Tribunal at a previous CMC. Prior to the Settlement Hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the TDSB, through the TLC, had resolved all of its issues, as set out in the Minutes of Settlement with the Applicant, and would not be in attendance at the Hearing.

LEGISLATIVE TESTS

3In making a decision on the ZBA before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and that it conforms to the applicable Official Plan (“OP”). In addition, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and, in general, regard for the related decisions of the Municipality and be satisfied that the proposed ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest.

HEARING

4The Tribunal received and marked the following:

• Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Service (previously marked);
• Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of David Charezenko; and
• Exhibit 3 – Visual Evidence of Applicant.

5The Tribunal had the benefit of the oral testimony and sworn Affidavit of David Charezenko, a Land Use Planner retained by the Applicant. Upon review of his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Charezenko to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. The following findings of the Tribunal are based on Mr. Charezenko’s unchallenged evidence, which the Tribunal accepts.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

6The Subject Property:

a. is located at the northwest corner of Bloor Street West and Mill Road;

b. is generally rectangular in shape;

c. has an area of 10,061 square metres (“sq m”) (1 hectare) with a frontage of approximately 129 metres (“m”) on Bloor Street West, 64.5 m on Mill Road and a lot depth of 71 m;

d. is currently occupied by a 15-storey apartment building with associated surface and underground parking as well as landscaped open space;

e. is located in the southwest portion of the Markland Woods neighbourhood which is characterized by apartment buildings with heights greater than five storeys, as well as single-detached one- to two-storey post-war era homes, with curvilinear streets connected by cul-de-sacs.

7Regarding the context (both existing and emerging):

the area to the northwest and southwest of the Bloor Street West and Mill Road intersection is characterized by high-density residential developments, with retail uses, low-rise residential development, and open space (Millwood Park). Further west is Markland Wood Golf Club and Etobicoke Creek. Areas to the northeast and southeast of Bloor Street West and Mill Road generally consist of low-density residential developments, open space, and commercial uses. (Exhibit 2, paragraph [30])

8Surrounding the Subject Property are:

a. to the north: Millwood Junior School/Toronto Millwood YMCA Child Care Centre (municipally known as 222 Mill Road);

b. to the east, northeast and northwest: lower-scaled residential area with one- to two-storey semi-detached and detached houses with frontages on Silverthorne Bush Drive, Mill Road and on internal streets. The residential subdivision continues further north to the east and west of Mill Road;

c. to the immediate west: Millwood Park, a 4.2-hectare park that features two baseball diamonds, three tennis courts, one gazebo and one children’s playground;

d. to the south: at the southeast corner of Mill Road and Bloor Street West is a 3-storey townhouse block (municipally known as 123 Mill Road), the Saint Clement Catholic School (municipally known as 4319 Bloor Street West) and a plaza (municipally known as 4355 Bloor Street West) with a variety of commercial uses, such as Dollarama, TD Canada Trust, and Markland Wood Pharmacy.

PROPOSAL

9The revised proposal involves a comprehensive redevelopment of the Subject Property featuring the addition of both a 13-storey and a four-storey apartment building while the existing 15-storey apartment building will be retained.

10The Settlement Plans (found in Exhibit 2) provide for “increased setbacks and step backs to mitigate wind and shadow impacts and to provide a gentler transition towards Millwood Park”. It is noted that these Settlement Plans do not change the height of either the proposed 13-storey or four-storey apartment buildings. Together, the proposed new buildings contain “a total of 297 dwelling units and a total Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 22,835 sq m of residential GFA exclusive of the existing 15-storey apartment building, resulting in a density of 2.26 Floor Space Index (“FSI”).”

11The following chart provides a comparison of the Original Proposal and the Settlement Plans:

Feature	Original Proposal (November 2020)	Current Plans (March 2023)
Total Site Area	10,061 square metres	10,061 square metres
Gross Floor Area
Existing 15-Storey Building	8,765 square metres	8,765 square metres
Proposed Buildings • Building B1 (West Building) • Building B2 (East Building)	22,023 square metres	22,835 square metres 18,335 square metres 4,500 square metres
Total GFA	30,788 square metres	31,600 square metres
Height
Building B1 (West Building) Building B2 (East Building)	16-storeys (56.50 metres inclusive of MPH) 4-storeys (18.4 metres inclusive of MPH)	13-storeys (47.50 metres inclusive of MPH) 4-storeys (18.95 metres inclusive of MPH)
Density
Existing	0.87 FSI	0.87 FSI
Proposed	2.19 FSI	2.26 FSI
Total FSI	3.06 FSI	3.13 FSI
Unit Mix
Existing Units	86 units	86 units
Proposed Units • Studio Units • 1-bedroom • 2-bedroom • 3-bedroom	308 units (100%) 6 units (2%) 154 units (50%) 115 units (37%) 33 units (11%)	297 units (100%) 3 units (1%) 133 units (45%) 119 units (40%) 42 units (14%)
Total Units	394 units	383 units
Amenity Space
Existing Building	101 square metres	101 square metres
Proposed Buildings Total
Building B1 • Indoor Amenity Space • Outdoor Amenity Space	739 square metres 491 square metres 248 square metres	1,072 square metres 488 square metres 584.9 square metres
Building B2 • Indoor Amenity Space • Outdoor Amenity Space	709 square metres 132 square metres 577 square metres	829.4 square metres 123 square metres 706.3 square metres
Total	1,448 square metres	1,901.4 square metres
Vehicle Parking Spaces
Existing Building • Residential Parking Spaces • Visitor Parking Spaces	106 parking spaces 99 parking spaces 7 parking spaces	106 parking spaces 99 parking spaces 7 parking spaces
Proposed Building • Residential Parking Spaces • Visitor Parking Spaces	418 parking spaces 303 parking spaces 115 parking spaces	462 parking spaces 386 parking spaces 76 parking spaces
Bicycle Parking Spaces Long-term bicycle parking space Short-term bicycle parking space	231 spaces 209 spaces 22 spaces	261 spaces 238 spaces 23 spaces
Loading Spaces Building B1 (West Building) Building B2 (East Building)	1 Type ‘G’ 1 Type ‘C’	1 Type ‘G’ 1 Type ‘C’

(Exhibit 2, paragraph [25])

PLANNING EVIDENCE

12It was Mr. Charezenko’s overall opinion that:

the Settlement Proposal, as reflected in the Current Plans, represents good planning and urban design and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, has regard to matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the City of Toronto Official Plan. (Exhibit 2, paragraph [69]).

13Mr. Charezenko stated that residential intensification on the Subject Property is promoted by the policy directions of both the Province and the City, which emphasize that land and infrastructure must be used efficiently and optimally and that land use planning and transportation planning ought to be integrated. He opined that the proposal’s optimization of density was “in the public interest and will support the efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure … [as it is located] on a major arterial street … is served by transit connecting to the TTC Line 2 (Bloor-Danforth) subway and … [is near] the Kipling GO station.”

14He further opined that:

residential intensification on the [Subject Property] will assist in improving the livability of the urban region through reurbanization, assist in meeting population forecasts for the City as set out in the Growth Plan and the Official Plan, and will provide additional housing options through an important contribution to the City’s rental housing stock that includes both retention of existing rental units and the provision of new residential units including new rental units. The proposal also makes better use of the land … by introducing landscape improvements around the site, better vehicular circulation and new amenity spaces. (Exhibit 2, paragraph [72])

15Mr. Charezenko also highlighted that there had been extensive engagement with the City, the Markland Wood Homeowners Association and the TDSB, which resulted in significant changes to the massing of the proposed development.

16Regarding the built form, Mr. Charezenko opined that the proposal is:

a. appropriately located on a prominent corner, yet well separated from the closest lands within the Neighbourhoods designation;

b. meets the intent of the City’s Mid-Rise Guidelines; and

c. will fit within the area context and provide an appropriate transition to neighbouring buildings and uses.

17In terms of height, Mr. Charezenko stated that the proposal features heights that:

a. are consistent with nearby developments;

b. will fit harmoniously into the existing and planned context; and

c. represent compatible infill development.

18Regarding land use, Mr. Charezenko highlighted that the proposal:

a. is in an ideal location and supported by policies which encourage residential development within built-up areas through infill and intensification;

b. will add 297 new dwelling units to the area;

c. includes a privately-owned publicly accessible (“POPs”) space, a walkway and several outdoor amenity spaces for residents; and

d. features built form which is compatible with the OP and conforms to the development standards for infill development within the Apartment Neighbourhoods.

19Mr. Charezenko also stated that, from a housing perspective, the proposal:

a. conforms to the housing policies in s. 3.2.1 in the OP;

b. conforms to the Apartment Neighbourhood policies in the OP;

c. will retain 86 rental apartments and create 297 additional units; and

d. will assist with the diversification of housing options and the achievement of a complete community.

20Mr. Charezenko opined that the proposal had regard to matters of provincial interest and, specifically, would:

a. provide for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities by increasing the number of residential units;

b. adequately provide onsite recreational facilities for social and health benefits;

c. provide for a full range of housing by adding 297 residential units and including an appropriate mix of studio, one, two and three-bedroom apartments; and

d. feature well-designed built form which encourages a sense of place;

e. be appropriately located on Bloor Street, a major street which connects into adjacent municipalities;

f. promote sustainable design which supports public transit and is oriented to pedestrians; and

g. support the health and completeness of the area.

21In terms of the PPS, Mr. Charezenko found the settlement proposal to be consistent with same and cited numerous policies (including s. 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.3.1, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.7.4 and 1.7.1) which speak to respecting residential intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure.

22Mr. Charezenko opined that the settlement proposal conforms to the Growth Plan (“GP”) and highlighted policies 2.2.1(2)(c), 2.2.1(3)(c), 2.2.1(4), 2.2.2(3), 3.2.3(1), 3.2.3(2) and 5.2.5(6) which assist with creating complete communities and optimizing the use of land and infrastructure.

23Mr. Charezenko explained in detail the policies of s. 3.1.3 of the OP which recognize:

the importance of good urban design, not just as an aesthetic overlay, but also as an essential ingredient of city-building. It demands high quality architecture, landscape architecture and urban design, both within the public realm and within the privately developed built form. In putting forward policies to guide built form, the Plan notes that developments must be conceived not only in terms of the individual building site and program, but also in terms of how that building and site fit within the context of the neighbourhood and the City. (Exhibit 2, paragraph [42]).

24He also explained that the Subject Property is designated Apartment Neighbourhoods “which are made up of apartment buildings and parks, local institutions, cultural and recreational facilities, and small-scale retail, service and office uses that serve the needs of area residents.” Mr. Charezenko highlighted a number of policies including s. 4.2(2) which enumerates the criteria for the development for Apartment Neighbourhoods and s. 4.2(3) regarding compatible infill development. It was his opinion that the proposal meets the relevant criteria.

25Mr. Charezenko also spoke to the requirements of the ZBL as well as the Avenues and Mid-Rise Building Guidelines (“Guidelines”). He explained that the proposed ZBA “would include a RA Exception zone, which would establish built form regulations in accordance with the Settlement Proposal and repeal By-law 13,190 of the Former City of Etobicoke By-law 11,737 insofar as it applies to the … [Subject Property].” It was his opinion that the proposal has appropriate regard for the Guidelines.

26Regarding the Participant statements, Mr. Charezenko indicated that the Applicant had worked with the Markland Wood Homeowners Association to address the concerns of the community. The concerns of Marie Worobec and Marcus Hendrik referred specifically to building setbacks and height, the scale of development and the shadow impacts of the proposal. Mr. Charezenko addressed the above concerns throughout his testimony.

27Mr. Charezenko recommended approval of the ZBA, in principle, subject to the terms set out in the Settlement Offer dated March 15, 2023, and the conditions set out in the Council resolution dated March 29, 2023.

28In conclusion, it was Mr. Charezenko’s professional opinion that the proposed ZBA application has regard to matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the GP and the OP.

FINDINGS

29On the uncontested evidence of Mr. Charezenko, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed ZBA is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the GP and OP. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and in general, regard for the related decision of the municipality, and is satisfied that the proposed ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest, specifically as it will:

a. promote efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure (including transit);

b. provide additional housing units and diverse housing types in an appropriate location;

c. contribute to the re-urbanization of the area and feature good urban design;

d. introduce new amenity spaces;

e. fit within the existing and planned context of the neighbourhood and provide appropriate transitions; and

f. contribute to the creation of a complete community.

30The Tribunal also finds that the Participants’ concerns have been sufficiently addressed by Mr. Charezenko’s evidence.

31As a result of the foregoing, the Tribunal will approve the proposed ZBA, in principle, and withhold the Final Order until the conditions are met.

INTERIM ORDER

32THE 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 [33] below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Schedule 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.

33The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b. The Tribunal is advised that the Owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor; and

c. The Tribunal is advised that the Owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

34The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

35If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [33] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Tuesday, December 5, 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 Zoning By-law Amendment 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.

36The 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, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

“S. Bobka”

S. Bobka

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.

SCHEDULE 1