Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 18, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000710
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.
Applicant/Appellant:
KS 300, 302 & 304 The East Mall Inc.
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
To permit a mixed-use development
Reference Number:
21 249539 WET 02 SA
Property Address:
300, 302, and 304 The East Mall
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000710
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000710
OLT Case Name:
KS 300, 302 & 304 The East Mall Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
November 27, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
KS 300, 302 & 304 The East Mall Inc.
Mark Flowers
City of Toronto
Matthew Longo
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY L.P. YOU and G.A. CROSER ON NOVEMBER 27, 2024, AND Interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1KS 300, 302 & 304 The East Mall Inc. ("Applicant”) proposed a mixed-use development, consisting of Phase 1 (Building Two of 11 storeys, Tower A of 30 storeys, and a new private road) and Phase 2 (Residential Tower B of 38 storeys, Residential Tower C of 21 storeys, and Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”)), at the lands known municipally as 300, 302, and 304 The East Mall (“Subject Lands”). This appeal arises under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (“Act”), following the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to make a decision with respect to a Site Plan Control application for Phase 2 of the development (“Application”).
2Disposition of the matter is a settlement proffered by the Parties for the consideration of the Tribunal. The changes to the original proposal are detailed as follows:
Original Proposal
Settlement Proposal
Summary
Tower B of 37 storeys and Tower C of 21 storeys on a two-four-storey podium with combination of interior and exterior amenities
Tower B of 38 storeys and Tower C of 21 storeys on a four-storey podium with combination of interior and exterior amenities as well as POPS
Gross Floor Area (GFA)
45,567 square metres
43,033 square metres
Amenities
2,240 square metres
2,568 square metres
POPS
Not programed
750 square metres
Vehicular Parking
567
303
Bike Parking
421
481
Floor Space Index (FSI) (Phase 1 included)
4.44
4.3
Units
560
641
EXHIBITS
3The following Exhibits were marked during the hearing:
Document Book of Applicant (marked as Exhibit 1);
The uncontested opinion evidence of Benjamin Larson, contained in the Compendium of Witness Statement of KS 300, 302 & 304 The East Mall Inc., dated November 25, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 2);
Elevate Planning Visual Evidence – November 25, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 3);
Phase 2 Architectural Drawings, prepared by Zeidler – November 22, 2024 (02431967xCDE1C) (marked as Exhibit 4);
Phase 2 Landscape Architectural Drawings, prepared by Janet Rosenberg & Studio – November 22, 2024 (02431968xCDE1C) (marked as Exhibit 5);
Civil Engineering Drawings, prepared by Counterpoint Engineering Inc. – November 22, 2024 (02431970xCDE1C) (marked as Exhibit 6);
OLT-24-000710 – Mulvey & Banani Lighting Plans – November 4, 2024 (02433194xCDE1C) (marked as Exhibit 7); and,
OLT-24-000710 – List of Drawings and Conditions of Site Plan Approval – November 27, 2024 (02433208xCDE1C) (marked as Exhibit 8).
SITE CONTEXT
4The Subject Lands are bounded by Highway 427 to the west, Gibbs Road to the north, The East Mall to the east, and Bloor Street to the south. The Applicant received the approval of Site-Specific Zoning By-laws granted by City Council to permit a phased mixed-use development on the Subject Lands. The Applicant received Notice of Approval Conditions (“NOAC”) for the Phase 1 Site Plan Control Application, and today’s settlement relates to the proposed Phase 2 Site Plan Control Application and conditions to complete the Subject Lands’ build-out.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
5The Tribunal recognised Mr. Larson, a Registered Professional Planner, member of the Ontario Professional Planner’s Institute, and member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, as being qualified to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
6The settlement proposal addressed the comments from the City, and agencies, on Phase 2 regarding the technical requirements of transportation, fire services, solid waste management, engineering, and planning. Mr. Larson testified that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and has considered the features, including sustainable design, site access and servicing, waste storage, parking, loading, landscaping, and exterior design as required under s. 114(5) of the Act.
7Mr. Larson’s evidence was that the Notice of Approval Conditions in the settlement proposal were appropriate and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, including the requirements of land conveyance for road widening.
8Mr. Larson opined that the settlement proposal was appropriate to implement the residential intensification through the approval of the plans and documents, and complies with the underlying site-specific rezoning approval.
TRIBUNAL FINDINGS
9The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned affirmed evidence of Mr. Larson reflects revisions to the Application before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties. The settlement proposal provides for a built form of intensification that will improve the supply of a range of housing, reduce car dependency, and expand and enhance the public realm with a POPS area and a combination of interior and exterior amenities.
10The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. Larson, as presented in his statement and oral testimony, and finds that the revised Application:
Has regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Planning Act;
Conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, City Official Plan and City’s Zoning By-law; and,
Reflects principles of good land use planning and is in public interest.
11Following the conclusion of the settlement hearing, the Parties submitted a revised list of drawings, approved in principle, and list of conditions. The Tribunal was informed that there was an oversight in the original documents pertaining to corresponding conveyance conditions that were not included in the approval conditions. This document has been attached to this Decision as Schedule 1. The Tribunal has reviewed the revised list and finds it satisfactory.
INTERIM ORDER
12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the site plan drawings listed in Schedule 1, comprising of the Phase 2 Architectural Drawings, prepared by Zeidler Architecture dated November 22, 2024 (02431967xCDE1C) marked as Exhibit 4, and Civil Engineering Drawings prepared by Counterpoint Engineering dated November 22, 2024, marked as Exhibit 6 are approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction of the pre-clearance conditions set out in Schedule 1 to this Interim Order.
13The Panel Members will remain seized for the issuance of the Final Order.
14If the Parties do not provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in Schedule 1 have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Monday, June 30, 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 issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
“L.P. You”
L.P. YOU
MEMBER
“G.A. Croser”
G.A. CROSER
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