Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 12, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-001017
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
21 235167 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto / Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Case Name:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
21 235167 STE 13 OZ
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto / Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-0001018
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-0001017
OLT Case Name:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings 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:
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
To permit a 45-storey building including 335 residential units
Reference Number:
22 192523 STE 13 SA
Property Address:
10 Huntley Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001019
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001017
Heard:
December 3, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited
David Bronskill
City of Toronto
Uttra Gautam Sarah O’Connor (in absentia)
Casey House
Peter Gross Kevin Dias (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY david brown ON December 3, 2024 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Interim Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns three Appeals filed by Glen-Huntley Holdings Limited and APS Holdings Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and an application to Amend the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) within the timeframes prescribed by the Act. The third Appeal is filed pursuant to s. 114(5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O., c 11, Schedule A (“COTA”) against the failure to make a decision on an Application for Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) within the timeframe prescribed in the COTA.
2The OPA, ZBA, and SPA were filed to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands located at 10 Huntley Street (“Subject Property”) with a 45-storey residential building containing 335 units.
3The Subject Property front on the west side of Huntley Street, south of Isabella Street, and extend west to include frontage along Jarvis Street. The Subject Property are currently occupied by a 20-storey rental residential apartment building located on the east side of the property and having access from Huntley Street. The west side of the Subject Property is occupied with a parking structure that accommodates 116 parking spaces servicing the existing building. Abutting the Subject Property on the north side is a three-storey heritage building with a four-storey addition occupied by Casey House. Abutting on the south side is a consolidated site currently occupied with low-rise residential uses. This abutting site has recently been approved for redevelopment that includes a 58-storey, mixed-use building.
4The OPA and ZBA were filed on November 5, 2021, and deemed complete by the City on December 22, 2021. The SPA was filed on August 5, 2022 and deemed complete on September 28, 2022. The Appellant filed three re-submissions to the City, the last re-submission on August 31, 2023, and attended information sessions with neighbours, tenants, and the Ward Councillor, with the last meeting held on February 22, 2023. The Appellant filed their Appeals on October 3, 2023.
5The Parties participated in mediation, and subsequently, a settlement was negotiated with the two abutting property owners and the City (“Settlement” or “Settlement Proposal”). City Council endorsed the Settlement at their meeting on July 24, 2024.
6The Appellant advised the Tribunal that they are not proceeding with the Appeal of the SPA at this time. It was explained that should the Tribunal allow the OPA and ZBA Appeals, the Appellant will continue to work with City staff to finalize the development plans, and they may be in a position to withdraw the SPA Appeal or bring the final plans and conditions of the SPA before the Tribunal for approval.
7Counsel for the City and Casey House attended supporting the Settlement as described in the City Council Resolution adopted on July 24, 2024, and filed with the Tribunal as Exhibit 4.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
8The Settlement Proposal proposes a 45-storey residential building, including a three-storey podium containing 335 units and a gross floor area of 24,605 square metres (“m2”). Three levels of underground parking are proposed to service the existing building, which is to be retained, and the proposed building and 14 visitor parking spaces will be provided at grade. 335 bicycle parking spaces are proposed and provided in a bicycle storage room located on the second floor.
9The Settlement Proposal contemplates the severance of the Subject Property with the existing 20-storey building being located on the retained lands and the proposed building located on the severed lands. An 85 m2 parcel of land at the southeast corner of the retained land will be dedicated to the City for Parkland purposes and combined with lands being dedicated on the adjacent property to the south.
10Access will be provided from Huntley Street to service both buildings over a shared driveway. No vehicular access to Jarvis Street is proposed. The proposed building will include an internal garbage service area for the existing building and a separate garbage area for the proposed building. A shared services agreement between the owners of the severed and retained parcels will address access, operations, and maintenance of the shared facilities.
11The proposed building will have a lobby fronting Jarvis Street, and a walkway is proposed along the north side of the Subject Property to facilitate pedestrian movement between Jarvis Street and Huntley Street. A 600 m2 amenity area is proposed on the third floor with an adjoining 306 m2 outdoor amenity area.
12The Settlement Proposal includes a Limiting Distance Agreement (“LDA”) with Casey House addressing the limited setback of the proposed tower along the north property line. The LDA generally applies to the west end of the Casey House property, aligning with the proposed building. The easterly end of the Casey House site is not subject to the LDA.
SUBMISSIONS
13Amanda Kosloski, a Registered Professional Planner, provided viva voce and affidavit evidence in support of the Settlement Proposal and the OPA and ZBA.
14Ms. Kosloski opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) as the proposed development represents infill and intensification within three separate Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSA”) and will add new dwelling units to an underutilized parcel of land within the downtown optimizing the use of existing and planned transit, infrastructure and community facilities. In addition, the strategic downtown location of the Subject Property also supports the use of active transportation, reducing dependency on the automobile.
15The OPA proposes to redesignate the Subject Property to Apartment Neighbourhoods and Parks and Open Space Areas within the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). Ms. Kosloski advised that Map 2 (Urban Structure) of the OP locates the Subject Property in the Downtown and Central Waterfront Area, which is identified as a strategic growth centre meant to accommodate the majority of new growth in the City.
16Chapter 2 of the OP provides direction for the City’s Growth Management Strategy. The OPA will designate the property to reflect the existing built form and the proposed development. Apartment Neighbourhoods are residential areas that allow for taller buildings and higher densities than Neighbourhoods. Ms. Kosloski proffered that development and intensification adjacent to or near an area designated Neighbourhoods must be compatible with, provide a gradual transition to and generally minimize impact on lands within the Neighbourhoods designation.
17Ms. Kosloski noted that the proposed development is located adjacent to an existing 20-storey apartment building on the Subject Property and a recently approved 58-storey, mixed-use tower on the abutting lands to the south that are reflective of the changing context of the neighbourhood within the downtown. The context of the Neighbourhoods adjacent to and including the Subject Property includes a variety of land uses, densities and building heights. Tall buildings are part of the existing and planned context surrounding the Subject Property. Ms. Kosloski opined that the proposed development respects the existing and planned physical character and fits within the context of the adjacent Neighbourhoods, including the proposed height, massing, streetscape, and open space.
18Chapter 3 of the OP addresses the built environment, and Ms. Kosloski noted that it is necessary to balance the policies of the OP. New tall buildings should be designed to reduce the physical and visual impacts of the tower on the public realm, limit shadow, maximize access to sunlight and limit and mitigate pedestrian-level wind impacts. Ms. Kosloski proffered that the proposed development represents a high-quality design that adds to and improves the public realm, maintains and enhances views of adjacent heritage resources, provides improved midblock connections and encloses servicing activities of the existing apartment building.
19Ms. Kosloski proffered that the Settlement Proposal has been designed to conserve the cultural heritage values, attributes and character of the adjacent heritage structure, as required by the OP, through specific design details of the proposed building maintaining views to the heritage property and through landscape design being used to highlight and draw attention from the public realm towards the protected structure.
20The Downtown Secondary Plan (“DSP”) primarily provides direction on lands designated Mixed-Use Areas and very little policy direction for lands designated Apartment Neighbourhoods as proposed by the OPA. Ms. Kosloski proffered that the DSP does direct growth to areas that are well-serviced by community facilities and requires that growth fit within the existing and planned context of the area. She contends that the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate amount of infill on an underutilized parcel of land in the Downtown that is located within three Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSA”) and is strategically located with frontage on a major arterial road.
21The proposed development has been designed to respond to the existing and planned context of the area, including the low and mid-rise buildings and adjacent heritage resources. Ms. Kosloski opined that the Settlement Proposal respects and reinforces the existing and planned context of the neighbourhood, is in a location appropriate for a tall building and conforms to the policies of the OP. Further, Ms. Kosloski opined that the Settlement Proposal, including the OPA and ZBA, conform to the policies of the DSP.
22Ms. Kosloski reviewed the Tall Building Design Guidelines and Downtown Tall Buildings, Vision and Supplementary Guidelines and proffered that the Settlement Proposal represents appropriate development, fits within the context of the area and responds to the guidelines.
23The council resolution supporting the Settlement Proposal contained conditions that Ms. Kosloski opined are appropriate to be attached to the Tribunal’s Order, should the OPA and ZBA be approved by the Tribunal. The conditions provide for the finalization of the SPA and the incorporation of any minor revision required to the ZBA or OPA. The conditions address the dedication of the lands for parkland purposes and include the requirement of the LDA negotiated with the adjacent owners of the Casey House.
24Ms. Kosloski recommended that the Tribunal allow the Appeals in part and approve the OPA and ZBA subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as set out in the Settlement Agreement and outlined in the council resolution endorsing the Settlement provided to the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
25The Tribunal, having considered the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Kosloski, finds that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and reflects a built-form that is appropriate to the immediate surrounding area’s existing and planned context.
26The Tribunal reviewed the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and is satisfied that the OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard for those matters.
27The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal to be implemented through the OPA and ZBA is consistent with the PPS 2024 and conforms to the intent of OP and the DSP. The proposed development represents an appropriate intensification on an underutilized parcel of land located within three MTSAs and is ideally situated to accommodate growth.
28The Tribunal allows the Appeals of the OPA and ZBA in part, on an interim basis, and approves the OPA and ZBA as set out in the Attachments to this Order in principle and subject to the conditions recommended being fulfilled prior to the issuance of the Final Order.
29The SPA is deferred sine die to be brought back to the Tribunal upon the finalization of the approval with the City or alternatively the Appeal may be withdrawn.
INTERIM ORDER
30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals filed pursuant to section 22(7) and section 34(11) of the Planning Act be allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [31] below and the Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 and Zoning By-Law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.
31The Tribunal withholds the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon the receipt and approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in its final form and confirmation from the Solicitor for the City of Toronto of the following pre-requisite matters:
a) The final form and content of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment submitted to the Tribunal for approval is satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
b) The Owner has, at its sole cost and expense, submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;
c) The Owner has, at its sole cost and expense, secured the design and provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development;
d) The Owner has, at its sole cost and expense, ensured the implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-laws or any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-laws to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding (“H”) By-law symbol regarding any new infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure as may be required;
e) The Owner has, at its sole cost and expense, conveyed to the City an on-site parkland dedication with an approximate size of 85.0 square metres and an approximate frontage of 3.4 metres to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor; and
f) The Owner has, at its sole cost and expense, registered on title, an agreement, or similar legal instrument over 119 Isabella Street, including the City as a Party, that ensures that the tower portion of the proposed residential building at 10 Huntley Street can achieve an appropriate separation distance to the north, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.
32The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment, the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment, and the issuance of the Final Order.
33If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order, set out in paragraph [31] above, have been satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, August 1, 2025, 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 Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
34The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange further attendance of the Parties to determine the additional timelines and deadlines for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2