Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 10, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000155
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Woodcliffe Landmark Properties Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Failure to make a decision Description: To facilitate redevelopment of the site for a 15-storey mixed-use building with 200 square metres of grade-related retail Reference Number: 21 239174 STE 12 0Z Municipality: City of Toronto Property Address: 1196-1210 Yonge Street & 2-8 Birch Avenue OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000155 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000155 OLT Case Name: Woodcliffe Landmark Properties Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.
Appellant: Woodcliffe Landmark Properties Limited Subject: Site Plan Control Application – Failure to Approve Description: To facilitate redevelopment of the site for a 15-storey mixed-use building with 200 square metres of grade-related retail Reference Number: 21 239181 STE 12 RH Municipality: City of Toronto Property Address: 1196-1210 Yonge Street & 2-8 Birch Avenue OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000156 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000155 OLT Case Name: Woodcliffe Landmark Properties Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: September 13, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Woodcliffe Landmark Properties Limited | Eileen Costello |
| City of Toronto | Gabe Szobel |
| Medbers Limited | Johanna Shapira |
DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
1This Decision and Interim Order came to fruition because of the ongoing productive discussions and meetings between the Parties. As a result, Woodcliffe Landmark Properties Limited (“Woodcliffe”) made a number of alterations to their original redevelopment proposal for the property Municipally known as 1196-1210 Yonge Street and 2-8 Birch Street (“Site”) in the City of Toronto (“City”).
2Leading up to the Hearing, Woodcliffe withdrew their Heritage Act appeals as they are no longer necessary, leaving only the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal (“ZBLA”) and the associated Site Plan Application appeal.
3Resolution between Woodcliffe and Medbers Limited through the execution of Minutes of Settlement answered the issues pertaining to vehicular visitor parking, maximum balcony depth, and revisions relating to the site plan (“Site Plan”) which will be contemplated subsequent to this disposition.
4In support of the Settlement Proposal, the Tribunal, based on the curriculum vitas and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty form of J. Craig Hunter and Anne McIlroy, qualified Mr. Hunter and Ms. McIlroy to provide opinion evidence in the field of land use planning and urban design respectively.
The Settlement Plans
5Once fully developed, the Site will contain a slender residential tower atop a retail/residential podium which incorporates the existing and original heritage attributes of the current heritage structure.
6Below grade, a four-storey automated parking system will house 140 spaces, three of which are visitor parking, all accessed at grade level via Birch Ave.
7Along Yonge Street, the building will mirror the heritage characteristics while creating refreshed retail units at grade and introduce the main entrance and lobby to the residential tower totalling 31 stories from ground to mechanical penthouse. Contained within the heritage levels are the eight (8) residential replacement units as well as 130 bike locker units.
8The tower steps back from the façade of the heritage levels to provide visual distinction between “new” and “old” along Yonge Street, and simultaneously steps back at the rear. Additional step-backs occur to the north at the eighth level to mirror the proposed development happening at 1216 Yonge Street and a further step back at the 16th level. One hundred and twenty-two new residential units are planned within the tower. Ms. McIlroy provided on page 9 of Exhibit 2 full component details of the tower, including balcony sizes and locations.
Witness Summaries
9Mr. Hunter provided the Tribunal with oral and written evidence (Exhibit 1) to support his findings. He opined that the settlement plans and revised ZBLA are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), and conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”). Mr. Hunter stated that the proposed Site represents appropriate intensification as it is within the Council-adopted Projected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”), and ultimately represents good planning and is in the public interest to approve.
10Ms. McIlroy provided the Tribunal with oral and written evidence (Exhibit 2) to support her findings that the settlement plans conform to the OP and will align with the intent of the Tall Building guidelines, and that they demonstrate principles of architectural design excellence, balanced urban design approaches, and offer a mix of residential unit sizes and types, including rental replacement units, while maintaining commercial units along the Yonge Street corridor.
11The above-mentioned planning documents relating to the Settlement Plans have several common themes and are implemented by the ZBLA, including:
a. the efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure;
b. support of an appropriate level of intensification that is supported by public transit;
c. provision of an appropriate and desirable urban design, contributing to the changing neighbourhood character through built-form transitions and setbacks;
d. a range of housing unit options (size and type, including rental replacement units);
e. conservation of heritage attributes.
Site Plan Application Appeal
12Counsel for Woodcliffe, Ms. Costello, provided the Tribunal with a draft order that includes matters related to the Site Plan Appeal. Ms. Costello explained that the Site Plan will be fully revised and resubmitted to the City to align with the updated ZBLA and requested that the Tribunal approve in principle the Site Plan dated August 15, 2024, and await the draft Notice of Approval Conditions for the Tribunal’s consideration.
FINDINGS
13The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence and opinions of Mr. Hunter and Ms. McIlroy and is satisfied that the Zoning By-law (Amendment) appeal, through the proposed settlement amendments, represents good planning, has regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and the OP, and has appropriate regard for the Tall Building Guidelines.
14As it relates to the Site Plan, the Parties have indicated that they have reached a resolution and will align the Site Plan and conditions with the ZBLA. Therefore the Tribunal will adjourn the approval of conditions of Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-000156 sine die.
INTERIM ORDER
15The appeal of Woodcliffe Landmark Properties Limited pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act as it relates to lands known municipally as 1196-1210 Yonge Street and 2-8 Birch Avenue (the “Site”) is allowed, in part.
16The development proposal for the Site, as contemplated in the architectural plans prepared by KPMB Architects Inc. and dated August 15, 2024, support the (draft) Zoning By- law Amendment attached herein as Attachment 1, and hereto is approved in principle.
17The Tribunal shall issue a Final Order approving the Zoning By-law Amendment once it has been advised by the Parties that the following conditions have been addressed:
a. that the final form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment meets the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
b. that, in addition to condition (a), above, the Zoning By-law Amendment: i. secures the provision of a minimum of three (3) vehicular parking spaces below-grade for visitors; ii. permits a maximum balcony depth of 2.0 m for levels five (5) through eight (8) of the tower portion of the building;
c. that the applicant has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or, that the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services has determined that holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment;
d. that the Applicant 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 Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review; and
e. that City Council has dealt with the Rental Housing Demolition Application 21 239181 STE 12 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code to demolish eight (8) existing residential rental dwelling units at 1196-1210 Yonge Street and 2-8 Birch Avenue.
f. confirmation of site plan draft Notice of Approval Conditions has been prepared to the satisfaction of City of Toronto;
g. confirmation that the final site plan package, as it relates to matters of vehicular access, egress, and design thereof, and loading and waste facilities, is materially the same as shown in the site plan dated August 15, 2024; and
h. the final site plan package has been updated to include a pavement marking and signage plan prepared by LEA Consulting dated June 17, 2024 to illustrate pick-up and drop-off processes within the Site.
18The Appellant’s appeal pursuant to s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, being Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-000156, is adjourned sine die.
“Kurtis Smith”
Kurtis Smith 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.