Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 29, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000018

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amendedss

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building

Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 OA

Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000018

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000018

OLT Case Name: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building

Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 OA

Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000019

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000018

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched A

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building

Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 SA

Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000020

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000018

Heard: November 20-30, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church

John Alati

Grace O’Brien

York Mills Valley Association

Ian Flett

Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow

Ian Flett

Community Association

City of Toronto

Lauren Pinder

Jessica Braun (in absentia)

Toronto and Region Conservation

Barbara Montgomery

Authority

Tim Duncan (in absentia)

DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal is related to appeals filed by Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church (“AFLC”) pursuant to ss. 22 (7) and 34 (11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and s. 114 (15) of the City of Toronto Act (“COTA”) with respect to the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframes on Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications (together “Applications”), and a Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) application, for the property known municipally as 25 Old York Mills Road (“Property”).

2The purpose of the Applications is to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the Property with a 12-storey mixed-use building comprising a total gross floor area (“GFA”) of 9,476 square metres (“sq m”), including residential units, a church, a multi-function space, a daycare and community space.

3The Property is a 3,530 sq m corner lot with 57.94 metres (“m”) of frontage on Old York Mills Road and 57.91 m of frontage on Campbell Crescent. It is generally flat with a downward slope to the west and to the south by approximately 1 m in each direction. It is currently developed with a two-storey church with associated surface parking on the south and east sides of the building. A portion of the Property, including portions of the existing church and parking area, is partially located within the regulatory floodplain of the West Don River. Driveway access to the parking area is provided from Campbell Crescent through two driveway access points, although the southern access has been barricaded by AFLC.

4The Property is located in the Hoggs Hollow neighbourhood, which is generally south and east of the intersection of Yonge Street and York Mills Road and is developed with mid-rise commercial, and mid-rise and townhouse residential buildings along the arterial roads and single detached dwellings in the interior portions of the neighbourhood. The Property is adjacent to a 10-storey condominium building on the north side of Old York Mills Road and townhouses at the southeast corner of Old York Mills Road and Campbell Crescent. To the south and southeast are single detached dwellings and to the west is Jolly Miller Park. Further to the west, at the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Old York Mills Road, is the south entrance to the York Mills Subway Station (“YM Subway Station”). The area is also served by surface bus transit routes along Yonge Street, York Mills Road, and Wilson Avenue.

5The Property is partially located within the regulatory floodplain of the West Don River and redevelopment of the Property would require regrading such that the development site is located outside of the floodplain. A total of 1,321 sq m of the Property is proposed to be dedicated to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”), including a 7.0 m buffer from the edge of the floodplain to form part of Jolly Miller Park, resulting in a reduced site area of 2,209 sq m.

6At the Case Management Conferences held on April 14, 2023 and June 27, 2023, the Tribunal granted Participant status to Rick Galbraith and Phillippa Perkins, respectively. Mr. Galbraith had concerns, including but not limited to, increased traffic, insufficient setbacks, height, shadowing and compatibility. Ms. Perkins had concerns, including but not limited to, built form, traffic, and parking. The Participant Statements were reviewed and considered in determining this matter.

EXISTING OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING

7The City Official Plan (“TOP”) designates the Property ‘Neighbourhoods’ permitting a maximum height for a residential use of four storeys and requiring a floodline buffer of 10.0 m.

8The former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 (“ZBL 7625”) zones the Property ‘One-Family Detached Dwelling Third Density Zone (R3)’ which permits single detached dwellings along with small scale retail and institutional uses. City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 (“ZBL 569”) zones the Property ‘Residential Detached RD (f18.0; a690)’, which contains similar provisions and standards as the R3 zone of ZBL 7625.

REVISED PROPOSAL

9The proposal was revised to an 11-storey mixed-use building with 9,644 sq m of total GFA (“Proposed Development”), as shown on the Site Plan drawing and Site Statistics included in the Visual Evidence exhibit (“Proposed Site Plan”) with a redesignation to ‘Apartment Neighbourhoods’ rather than to ‘Mixed-Use Areas’. It will have a GFA of 1,537 sq m on the ground floor rising to 674 sq m at the tenth floor. A total of 1,809 sq m of non-residential GFA is proposed for the assembly, childcare, church and multifunction space, with a total of 7,835 sq m of residential GFA. A total of 103 dwelling units are proposed, comprised of nine studio, 44 one-bedroom, 38 two-bedroom and 12 three-bedroom units. The indoor and outdoor amenity space meet the required Zoning By-law minimums with a total of 443 sq m.

10The Proposed Development is to be setback 3.0 m from the east property line along Campbell Crescent, with stepbacks at the third and fifth floors, and 1.5 m from the north property line adjacent to Old York Mills Road with stepbacks at the fifth and tenth floors. On the west side, adjacent to Jolly Miller Park, the Proposed Development is to be setback 3.0 m from the new property line to be created once the floodplain lands are dedicated to TRCA. The Proposed Development is to be setback 7.8 m from the south property line to provide for the driveway entrance, with stepbacks at the third, fifth and tenth floors, and a further stepback for the mechanical penthouse.

THE APPLICATIONS

11The Applications were submitted on July 19, 2022, deemed complete by the City on August 25, 2022, and as revised, seek to amend the TOP, ZBL 7625 and ZBL 569 as follows:

• redesignate the Property from ‘Neighbourhoods’ to ‘Apartment Neighbourhoods’ in order to allow for a maximum height higher than four storeys, and to reduce the floodline buffer area from 10.0 m to 7.0 m; and

• rezone the Property to the appropriate zoning category and include site specific development standards relating to, among other things, height, density, parking, and landscaping. The proposed draft ZBAs specify the rezonings would be to ‘Residential Apartment Zone’ (“RA Zone”) with an exception and ‘Open Space Natural Zone’ (“ON Zone”) under ZBL 569, and ‘Multiple-Family Dwellings Sixth Density Zone’ with an exception and ‘Open Space Zone’ under ZBL 7625.

12The Applications were appealed on January 6, 2023 due to the failure of the City to make a decision, following which the City hosted a virtual community consultation meeting on February 27, 2023.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

13At the outset of the Hearing, Mr. Alati advised the Tribunal that the SPA appeal filed under s. 114(15) of COTA, related to Tribunal file number OLT-23-000020, is not before the Tribunal for the hearing of the OPA and ZBA appeals.

14Mr. Alati also advised that the Applicant had reached a settlement with the City and TRCA with respect to the OPA and ZBA appeals and that the Hearing was contested only insofar as it related to the issues of the York Mills Valley Association (“YMVA”) and the Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association (“THHCA”). In this respect, he advised that he would be calling four of the witnesses for AFLC and would only be calling the summoned TRCA witness if the need arose.

15Despite their individual issues, Mr. Flett advised the Tribunal that he would be advancing his clients’ cases together as one consolidated case, as YMVA and THHCA are aligned on the issues.

16On the fourth day of the Hearing, Mr. Flett raised an issue related to the potential issuance of an interim order by the Tribunal, with a final order being withheld until certain conditions had been fulfilled, one of which requires a parking utilization study (“PUS”) to be undertaken and a Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM Plan”) to be provided. His concern related to the potential approval in principle with a condition of which the outcome is not now known, since the PUS and TDM Plan have not yet been completed.

17Ms. Pinder advised the Tribunal that the conditions are technical in nature and can be handled as conditions of approval. It was determined by the Tribunal that the proposed conditions to the Final Order are reasonable and supported by the City, the TRCA and the AFLC.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

18When considering appeals filed pursuant to ss. 22 (7) and 34 (11) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Further, s. 3 (5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and, in this case, conform to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”).

19The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Applications conform with the TOP, represent good land use planning and are in the public interest.

WITNESSES

20The Tribunal qualified the following witnesses, on consent, to provide expert opinion evidence in their respective areas of expertise, as noted:

For AFLC:

• Michael Goldberg – Land Use Planning

• Greg Rapp – Water Resources Engineering

• Mansoor Kazerouni – Architecture and Urban Design

• Hugo Chan – Transportation Engineering

For YMVA and THHCA:

• Michael Tedesco – Transportation Engineering

• Terry Mills – Land Use Planning

21With respect to Mr. Mills, there was some discussion related to his representation of THHCA. It was clarified that he had a formal retainer with YMVA and a casual arrangement with THHCA but that he represented both YMVA and THHCA in his evidence before the Tribunal.

ISSES

22The Issues List (“IL”) includes the following issues of YMVA and THHCA as follows:

York Mills Valley Association

Planning Act

1. Are the applications for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws consistent with the purposes of the Planning Act found at section 1.1?

2. Do the applications for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws have regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in sections 2(f), (h), (n), (p), (q) and (r) of the Planning Act?

PPS, 2020

3. Are the applications for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) Policies 1.1.1; 1.1.3.2; 1.1.3.4; 1.4.1, 1.5.1 and 4.6?

Official Plan

4. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) conform to the Toronto Official Plan policies:

a. Built form policies 3.1.3.1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); 3.1.3.2 - 10; 3.1.4.4-6;

b. Parks and Open Spaces: 3.2.3.3;

c. Land Use Designations – Development Criteria in Mixed Use Areas: 4.5.2;

d. Land Use Designations – Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods 4.1.9.

Mid-Rise Design Guidelines

5. Does the proposed development achieve the intent and purpose of the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards (2010) and applicable addendum (2016)?

Built Form

6. Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment and proposed built form provide:

a. Adequate transition to the neighbourhood?

b. Respect the pedestrian realm?

c. Adequate and appropriately designed private and public open space?

Land Use

7. Are the proposed uses appropriate for the subject site and its physical context?

Transportation

8. Does the proposed development provide sufficient parking supply for the proposed uses?

9. Is the site circulation plan and are the vehicular access points appropriate for this site and its context?

10. Are the forecast traffic volumes reflective of the anticipated uses, and will they lead to negative impacts?

11. Do the proposed ingress and egress points properly account for potential conflicts with other right-of-way users including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists?

12. Are there traffic impacts that will create unsafe conditions?

Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association

Built Form

1. Does the massing of the proposed development fit within the planned context (type, height, density, location, placement and scale)?

a. Do the height, setbacks and stepbacks of the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto’s Mid-Rise Performance Standard guideline?

b. Do the proposed streetwall heights and setbacks fit harmoniously within the planned context for the neighbourhood?

c. Does the proposed development provide a good transition in height and scale between the area’s different building types, including residential single-family homes and townhomes?

d. Does the proposed location and organization provide appropriate setbacks and landscaping on these setbacks, which enhance local character and provide attractive, safe transitions between the private and public realms?

e. Does the proposed configuration of the proposed development adversely impact the privacy and noise and light pollution of neighbourhood residences? If so, how does this impact compare to other development configuration options and does the proposal adequately mitigate any adverse impacts?

2. Does the proposed site location and organization serve to create a development that meets the intent and purpose of City of Toronto’s Official Plan in relation to how it benefits the community and improves safety (City of Toronto Official Plan – Policies: 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.4)?

a. Does the location and organization of the proposed development improve safety?

b. Does the location and organization frame and support adjacent streets, lanes, parks and open spaces to promote civic life and the use of the public realm?

c. Does the site organization minimize the impact and improve public safety and attractiveness of the public realm, in relation to the location and organization of the proposed vehicular access and ramps, loading zones, and service vehicle entrance?

Land Use

3. Is the proposed development required to meet the Land Use Designations – Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods and adjacent to Neighbourhoods (City of Toronto Official Plan – Policies: 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8)? If so, does it?

4. Are the proposed mixed uses appropriate for this site?

5. Are the proposed mixed uses appropriate given the context of the existing local community?

6. For each of the proposed mixed uses, how will those who intend to visit the proposed development intend to be transported to access the site?

Transportation

7. Does any increase in volume of motorized vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists (traffic) as a result of the proposed development, pose a safety risk in the immediate neighbourhood on and around Campbell Cres, when taking into consideration of any additional increase in traffic due to approved developments? If so, does the current proposal acceptably and appropriately mitigate the safety risk?

8. Does the proposed driveway location create safety concerns for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists? If so, how does this compare to other driveway location options, and does the current proposal appropriately mitigate these safety concerns?

9. Does the proposed driveway location pose a noise concern for immediate neighbours? If so, how does this compare to other driveway location options, and does the current proposal appropriately mitigate those noise concerns?

10. Would the lack of on-site drop-off areas for the proposed development create safety concerns for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists? If so, does the current proposal appropriately mitigate these safety concerns?

11. Does the proposed development provide appropriate parking for each of the proposed uses?

Site Specific Issue

12. Does the proposed development pose a flood risk to adjacent and neighbourhood properties due to insufficient drainage of water runoff (above- and under- ground) from East of the subject property? If so, does the proposed development design sufficiently mitigate this risk?

23With respect to the THHCA issues, AFLC noted in the Procedural Order that “[italicized and underlined] text refers to issues or parts of issues which the Applicant does not agree are appropriate nor can they be adjudicated by the Tribunal”. Further, AFLC noted that, regarding Issues 1e and 9, “the Applicant is not obliged to test alternative configurations of its proposal” and regarding Issue 6, “this is not measurable. The Applicant cannot assess how those who intend to visit the proposed development intend to be transported to access the site”.

EVIDENCE / ANALYSIS

24Much of YMVA’s and THHCA’s evidence was based on an alternative proposed built form with access from Old York Mills Road. Although there may be merit in an alternative site configuration, other than a sketch overlay indicating the entrance to the building at the northwest corner of the Property and potential locations for the entrance to the underground parking and the loading dock, in its evidence YMVA and THHCA did not put forth a revised plan showing the layout of the Property with respect to built form, parking areas, landscaping, circulation, etc., leaving it as an unevaluated option with no status and no supporting reports.

25The Tribunal is only able to consider the merits of the Applications as they relate to the Proposed Site Plan. The Tribunal cannot assess the merits of an alternative site plan as no such plan was before the Tribunal. Therefore, no weight has been given to any other site or built form configuration in the evaluation of the Applications. On this basis, the evidence put forth with respect to the option of an alternative built form with access from Old York Mills Road has not been included in the evaluation of the merits of the Applications, nor in the following review of the evidence submitted.

26For the reasons determined through the following review of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Applications have merit and should be approved.

Planning Act

YMVA Issues 1 and 2 – Planning Act s. 1.1 and s. 2 (f), (h), (n), (p), (q) and (r)

Planning Act – Appellant Evidence

27In his witness statement, with respect to consistency with the purposes of s. 1.1 of the Act, Mr. Goldberg opined that “the proposal represents sustainable development in a healthy natural environment, is in conformity with and consistent with Provincial Policy, including the integration of matters of provincial interest into municipal planning decisions” and “[t]hrough the ongoing discussions with both the City and the TRCA, it has also encouraged co-operation and co-ordination among various interests”.

28Mr. Goldberg stated that he is satisfied that the Applications have appropriate regard to the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act as follows:

• s. 2 (a) addressing the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions – a Natural Heritage Impact Study (“NHIS”) was submitted to the City and all matters related to natural heritage have been addressed;

• s. 2 (f) addressing the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems – a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (“FSR”) was submitted to the City providing for the adequate provision and efficient use of services given the proposed intensified use of the land. Mr. Rapp also noted that the FSR contains a water servicing analysis and the stormwater management design demonstrating “the adequate provision and efficient use of sewage and water services and waste management systems for the Proposed Development”. He opined that the existing municipal storm and sanitary sewers and watermain infrastructure can support the Proposed Development without the need for any upgrades or improvements and that it will not adversely impact the function of the existing infrastructure for any neighbouring properties;

• s. 2 (h) addressing the orderly development of safe and healthy communities – TRCA is satisfied with the off- and on-site regrading with a balanced cut and fill, and the redevelopment of a place of worship, along with a daycare close to transit, helps to provide for a healthy community;

• s. 2 (i) addressing the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities – a community facilities report for the service area was submitted to the City and the facilities were deemed to be adequate;

• s. 2 (m) addressing the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies and s. 2 (n) addressing the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests – the development of the Proposed Site Plan was a multi-disciplinary approach which included TRCA;

• s. 2 (p) addressing the appropriate location of growth and development – all Parties are in agreement that the Property is an appropriate location for growth and redevelopment and the only issue in that regard is with respect to the proposed scale of the redevelopment;

• s. 2 (q) addressing the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians – the Property is “within a short walking distance to the York Mills Subway Station and Yonge Street and York Mills Road surface transit routes”.

• s. 2 (r) addressing the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant – Mr. Goldberg relied on Mr. Kazerouni’s assessment that the Proposed Development “includes a built form that embodies the uses programmatically contemplated locating them synergistically with the adjacent context and enhancing the quality of the public realm”. Mr. Kazerouni added that, as it relates to urban design and architecture, “the Proposal is well designed and has appropriate regard to section 2(r) of the Planning Act”; and

• s. 2 (s) addressing the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate – the Proposed Site Plan provides an appropriate number of parking spaces, with the recognition of the existing transit facilities and the ‘Green P’ parking lot on the east side of Yonge Street between Old York Mills Road and Mill Street.

Planning Act – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

29Although this was an issue on the YMVA IL, Mr. Mills did not address the Act in his witness statement nor in his evidence before the Tribunal; however, on questioning from the Tribunal, opined that s. 2 (a) is not particularly relevant, s. 2 (f) has been “dealt with”, and s. 2 (h) has been “talked about” and that it comes down to the issue of transportation on the local road network. Regarding s. 2 (j), he advised that he appreciates the diversity of the proposed unit types.

30Mr. Mills proffered that, generally, he finds that the TOP does “a very good job” of being built on the foundations of the Act.

Planning Act – Analysis

31Given that there was no substantive disagreement between the Parties related to s. 1.1 or s. 2 of the Act, the Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Rapp and finds that the Applications are consistent with the purposes found in s. 1.1 of the Act and have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act.

PPS / YMVA Issue 3

PPS – Appellant Evidence

32In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg referred to policy 4.6 of the PPS which states that “[t]he official plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this Provincial Policy Statement”.

33In consideration of the PPS, Mr. Goldberg opined that the Proposed Development is consistent with the policy direction of the PPS as the “development is located in very close proximity to a subway station and a transit hub, which is identified as an appropriate location for significant growth of higher density context appropriate development”. He furthered that the Proposed Development “is an efficient use of land, with a denser urban form, that will cost-effectively utilize existing infrastructure and community facilities”.

34Policy 1.1.3.4 of the PPS states that “[a]ppropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment, and compact form, while avoiding or minimizing risks to public health and safety”. Mr. Goldberg opined in his witness statement that the “proposed height and density is a context appropriate compact form of development and assists in facilitating and accommodating the mix of uses proposed”. In terms of minimizing risk to public health and safety, he advised that “the TRCA is tasked to ensure that all natural hazard-related concerns are appropriately addressed and the applicant has settled with the TRCA”.

35Mr. Goldberg opined in his witness statement that the Proposed Development is consistent with policy 1.7.1 which speaks to long-term economic prosperity. He found that this policy “links economic prosperity with optimization of the use of land and infrastructure and promotes opportunities for community investment-readiness”. In his opinion, “optimization is a context specific consideration” and “the appropriate balance has been struck” in the proposed mixed-use residential and community facility. He added that the Proposed Development is “at the edge of the neighbourhood, in very close proximity to rapid transit, and presents an opportunity to optimize this site in height and floor space, having appropriate regard to its lower scale Neighborhoods” to the south, east, and southeast.

36In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg opined that the Proposed Development “supports, advances, and is consistent with the PPS, including its policy direction to optimize the use of the land, resources, and the existing and planned infrastructure” and that the Proposed Development, “is appropriate and suitable for this site and its surrounding context”.

37Mr. Rapp addressed section 3.1 of the PPS and opined that the Proposed Development meets the requirements related to natural hazards. Based on his analysis which was undertaken following the latest guidelines of the City and TRCA, he advised that the Proposed Development would be located outside of any lands subject to flooding and would cause no net-loss in floodplain storage resulting from the proposed grading. In addition, he advised that the Proposed Development would result in “a net increase in floodplain storage volume” and that “the proposed re-grading within the floodplain will not adversely impact any properties upstream or downstream of the site”.

PPS – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

38Although this was an issue on the YMVA IL, Mr. Mills did not address the PPS but rather spoke to policies in the proposed new Provincial Planning Statement which, at the time of the hearing, was in draft form, was not in force and had no legal standing to test the Applications against.

PPS – Analysis

39With no countervailing evidence, the Tribunal accepts and agrees with Mr. Goldberg’s and Mr. Rapp’s uncontested evidence that the Applications are consistent with the PPS.

Growth Plan

40Although conformity with the Growth Plan was not an issue on the IL, as provincial policy, it is applicable and relevant to the appeals.

Growth Plan – Appellant Evidence

41In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg noted that policy 2.2.1.2 of the Growth Plan directs growth to delineated built-up areas within settlement areas and that the Property is within such an area. He added that the Property is “at the edge of the neighbourhood and in very close proximity to frequent and higher order transit” and “is well located to support the level of intensification being proposed”. He furthered that the Property “is very accessible to existing shopping, services, places of employment and community facilities in close walking and transit proximity to the subject site” and that the Proposed Development is “intended to better utilize and optimize the subject site with respect to the land base and the rapid transit infrastructure immediately accessible to this site”.

42Mr. Goldberg noted that the Property is located within a ‘Strategic Growth Area’ and a ‘Major Transit Station Area’, which are serviced by ‘High Order Transit’ and ‘Frequent Transit’ as defined in the Growth Plan, and that as such, the Property is in an area where the Growth Plan policies direct “context appropriate intensive forms of growth” as it is within close walking proximity to Yonge Street, a ‘Higher Order Transit’ corridor which is subject to ‘Frequent Transit’.

43Mr. Goldberg noted in his witness statement that policy 2.2.6.1 a) i. of the Growth Plan speaks to housing and the need to “identify a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including second units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents”. He opined that by introducing a variety of housing units, “the housing policies relating to providing a mix of housing options and densities are satisfied and advanced”. He added that the Proposed Development also “seeks to replace the existing church with a new one as well as other community-related facilities”, which in his opinion, “will accommodate the needs of the users and will complement the existing mixed-use and residential buildings in the area, contributing to the evolution and maturation of this underutilized site and this area, as a more complete community”.

44It was Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Applications conform with the Growth Plan.

Growth Plan – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

45Mr. Mills did not address conformity of the Applications to the Growth Plan in his witness statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

Growth Plan – Analysis

46With no countervailing evidence, the Tribunal accepts and agrees with Mr. Goldberg’s uncontested opinion that the Applications conform with the Growth Plan based on his assessment of the Growth Plan policies.

TOP – YMVA Issues 4, 6 and 7 and THHCA Issues 1-6

47Although YMVA Issue 4 addresses only certain policies of the TOP, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to determine whether the Applications conform to all relevant policies of the TOP in its findings of the appeals.

TOP – Healthy Neighbourhoods Policies

TOP – Healthy Neighbourhoods Policies – Appellant Evidence

48Mr. Goldberg addressed the Healthy Neighbourhoods policies in section 2.3.1 of the TOP as follows:

• policy 2.3.1.3.a) which requires developments in the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation “that are adjacent or close to Neighbourhoods” to “be compatible with those Neighbourhoods”. It was his opinion that to be ‘compatible’ does not mean ‘the same as’ or ‘similar to’ and that the Proposed Development is compatible and could co-exist in harmony without undue impacts on the neighbouring lands to the south and southeast designated ‘Neighbourhoods’ despite being a different form;

• policy 2.3.1.3.b) which requires a “gradual transition of scale and density… through the stepping down of buildings towards and setbacks from those Neighbourhoods”. He advised that both he and Mr. Kazerouni were satisfied that a gradual transition has been achieved;

• policy 2.3.1.3.c) which requires “adequate light and privacy for residents in those Neighbourhoods”. He opined that the Proposed Development is adequately set back and that the shadow impact studies demonstrate that there would be no shadow implications on the surrounding lands designated ‘Neighbourhoods’. He added that the test is to adequately limit shadowing rather than not allowing any new shadowing, and that, being north of the surrounding ‘Neighbourhoods’ designations, minimal shadowing implications would result from the Proposed Development;

• policy 2.3.1.3.d) which requires lighting and amenity areas to be oriented and screened “to minimize impacts on adjacent land in those Neighbourhoods”. He advised that the Proposed Development orients the servicing areas inwards to the site and that the specifics related to lighting will be addressed through the SPA application;

• policy 2.3.1.3.e) which requires service areas, any surface parking and access to underground and structured parking to be located and screened “to minimize impacts on adjacent land in those Neighbourhoods” and to be enclosed “where distancing and screening do not sufficiently mitigate visual, noise and odour impacts upon adjacent land in those Neighbourhoods”. He advised that both the ramp and the loading area are proposed to be located inside the building, minimizing the impacts on the adjacent lands designated ‘Neighbourhoods’; and

• policy 2.3.1.3.f) which requires attenuation measures for “resulting traffic and parking impacts on adjacent neighbourhood streets so as not to significantly diminish the residential amenity of those Neighbourhoods”. He stated that the Proposed Development provides parking for the place of worship and assembly uses and that the Property is close to transit and surface parking, with limited street parking permitted on Campbell Street south of the Property, and no street parking permitted adjacent to the Property. He added that places of worship are a common feature in neighbourhoods, form part of the fabric of neighbourhoods and help to achieve complete communities. He acknowledged that there would be traffic generated by the Proposed Development but that it had been appropriately managed in the opinion of the City and Mr. Chan.

49In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg added that the “Healthy Neighbourhoods policies have been achieved through the location, siting, and transition down of the stepped mixed use building, while being designed in a complementary fashion with the existing higher density buildings and lower forms of housing in the immediate area”. He added that Proposed Development “will contribute to the efficiency of the use of the site and a complete community generally” and “[a]ccess to local recreational facilities, parks, and other community services are within walking distance or with a short transit ride”. This informed his opinion that the Proposed Development addresses and conforms to the Healthy Neighbourhoods policies of the TOP.

50Mr. Kazerouni also addressed the Healthy Neighbourhood policies of the TOP and opined that the Proposed Development responds to the policies by “improv[ing] the surrounding landscape with opportunities to increase the park and restore parts of the site to conservation lands, improv[ing] the surrounding streetscape and increase[ing] the safety of the public realm adjacent to the site”. He added that the Proposed Development “reintroduces a place of worship, consolidates community facilities into a single development that include a communal gathering space and a child care and facilitates better utilization of outdoor space through park consolidation”. He opined that these uses, in addition to the diverse range of housing units proposed, contribute to the creation of a complete community in close proximity to transit.

51In addition, Mr. Kazerouni opined that the Proposed Development addresses the surrounding context through:

• stepbacks and setbacks;

• effecting a transition to adjacent low rise neighbourhoods;

• appropriately locating and screening service functions in a manner that does not impact the adjacent neighbourhood; and

• eliminating all surface parking in favour of a more urban form of development.

TOP – Healthy Neighbourhoods Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

52Mr. Mills addressed the Healthy Neighbourhoods policies in section 2.3.1 of the TOP and stated that he agrees that subsections a) and b) are met relating to compatibility with the adjacent neighbourhoods and providing a gradual transition of scale and density, respectively. He had concerns regarding subsection e) related to impacts of locating access to the underground parking from Campbell Crescent and recommended the access should be from Old York Mills Road.

53Regarding policy 2.3.1.4 of the TOP relating to carefully controlling intensification of land adjacent to neighbourhoods “so that neighbourhoods are protected from negative impact”, Mr. Mills advised that, because of the redesignation from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods, it is necessary to have some sensitivity and regard for the setback along Campbell Crescent.

54With respect to policy 2.3.1.5 of the TOP related to improving the “functioning of the local network of streets in Neighbourhoods and Apartment Neighbourhoods”, Mr. Mills opined that it “makes sense” for the pick-up and drop-off (“PU/DO”) of children at the daycare to be along the Old York Mills Road frontage or along the portion of the Property to be conveyed to the TRCA, rather than via Campbell Crescent since Old York Mills Road is not a neighbourhood road.

55Mr. Mills accepted the findings of the shadow study and agreed that it would not create significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

TOP – Healthy Neighbourhoods Policies – Analysis and Findings

56The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Goldberg and agrees that to be ‘compatible’ does not mean ‘the same as’ or ‘similar to’ and that the Proposed Development is compatible and could coexist in harmony without undue impacts on the surrounding land uses based on both the existing non-residential established use of the Property and the proximate nine-storey development at 10 York Mills Road. The Property is at the edge of the Neighbourhoods designation and is ideally located for intensification.

57The Tribunal is satisfied that any impacts on adjacent lands designated ‘Neighbourhoods’ related to the ramp and the loading area will be minimized as they are to be located inside the building. As well, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Goldberg that places of worship form part of the fabric of neighbourhoods and especially so in this case given the existing use of the Property.

TOP – Public Realm Policies

TOP – Public Realm Policies – Appellant Evidence

58Mr. Goldberg addressed the Public Realm policies of the TOP in his witness statement by stating that:

• the Proposed Development “incorporates active uses at-grade through the residential lobby entrance facing Old York Mills Road and the church entrance facing Campbell Crescent”;

• the entrance features incorporate “an active and vibrant pedestrian realm maintaining and enhancing existing pedestrian linkages within the neighbourhood”;

• landscape treatment “will highlight the entry features and provide for well-defined and accessible entry features”;

• where feasible, “tree preservation along with new tree plantings will generally enhance the current vegetation existing on site”;

• “design features are intended to increase pedestrian mobility connected to the greater neighbourhood pedestrian infrastructure”; and

• the expansion of Jolly Miller Park to the west “increases the amount of publicly accessible green space within the area and additional opportunity of tree planting within the park”.

59Based on the foregoing, it was Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Proposed Development advances and conforms to the Public Realm policies of the TOP.

60Mr. Kazerouni also addressed the Public Realm policies of the TOP, stating that the Proposed Development “speaks to a high quality of architecture, landscape and urban design with a built form that supports and improves the public realm including adjacent streets and open spaces, creating a vibrant, safe and inclusive environment” by:

• introducing a diversity of housing types in close proximity to public transit;

• increasing and improving the portion of the Property to be dedicated to TRCA for park purposes providing opportunities for passive and active recreation; and

• incorporating a place of worship, communal gathering space and child care that promotes civic life and fosters social interaction.

61Mr. Kazerouni advised that the Proposed Development has been designed to meet the Toronto Green Standards (“TGS”) regarding sustainable design. It was his opinion that the Proposed Development “delivers a high degree of design excellence through its form, expression and choice of materials” and that its “elements are distinctly expressed at grade and significantly add to the character of the urban environment replacing an asphalted parking lot with active animated uses that foster community, enhance safety and improve the quality of the public realm”.

62Further, Mr. Kazerouni noted that the Proposed Development “introduces a built form that mediates between the higher developments to the north and north west with a transitional massing that steps down as it approaches the lower rise neighbourhood to the south, with low rise street facing elements on Campbell Crescent”.

63For the reasons cited above, it was Mr. Kazerouni’s opinion that the proposal addresses many of the Public Realm policies of the TOP.

TOP – Public Realm Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

64Mr. Mills did not address the Public Realm policies in his witness statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

TOP – Public Realm Policies – Analysis and Findings

65The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kazerouni related to the Public Realm policies in the TOP and is confident that such policies will be further implemented through the SPA process.

TOP – Built Form Policies

TOP – Built Form Policies – Appellant Evidence

66Mr. Goldberg addressed the Built Form policies of the TOP in his witness statement by stating that, in his opinion, the Proposed Development conforms with the Built Form by “framing the street”, “locating the building parallel to Old York Mills Road, Campbell Crescent and the adjacent park” and “providing a pedestrian oriented and animated street frontage along the north and east sides of the proposed building”. Addressing policy 3.1.3.5 of the TOP, he added that the Property, being located at the edge of the neighbourhood on Old York Mills Road and in close proximity to Yonge Street and to other buildings of varying heights, and within 100 m of the YM Subway Station, ensures that the Proposed Development “will fit with its existing and planned context”. He added that the Proposed Development “has been designed to appropriately strike a balance of accommodating a form, building mass, and density that compatibly fits within its existing and planned context and provides an appropriate separation and transition between areas of different development intensity and scale”.

67With respect to Built Form, Mr. Goldberg drew attention to a sidebar in the TOP related to ‘transition in scale’ which reads:

Transition in scale is the geometric relationship between areas of low-scale development, parks or open spaces and taller, more intense development. It provides a measure of the impacts, including shadows and privacy, of larger-scale development on low-scale neighbourhoods and the public realm. It can be achieved using a variety of measures – individually or in different combinations – including angular planes, stepping height limits, location and orientation of buildings, the use of setbacks and step-backs of building mass, and separation distances. Good transition in scale is contextual and will be determined by considering the planned level of growth in relation to adjacent sites and the public realm. It should balance growth with the impacts of intensification in a way that is both repeatable and predictable in its impacts.

He opined that the sidebar recognizes the adjacency of different scales of development in the City and that the TOP does not require one means of transition but provides a menu of options related to transition in scale that can be applied contextually.

68Based on the foregoing, it was Mr. Goldberg’s opinion, founded on Mr. Kazerouni’s review and his own independent review, that the Proposed Development advances and conforms to the Built Form policies of the TOP. He advised that the south side of the Proposed Development maintains the 45-degree angular plane transition measure up to the fourth floor, with stepbacks applied to the upper floors, and the north side, which does not abut a ‘Neighbourhoods’ designation, incorporates stepbacks on the upper floors to help create pedestrian scale. Further, he stated that the SPA process would deal with more fine-grained details related to landscaping, street furniture and other public realm features.

69Mr. Kazerouni also addressed the Built Form policies of the TOP, stating that policy 3.1.3.1 relates to locating and organizing development to fit with its existing and planned context through a number of objectives. In this respect, he opined that the Proposed Development adequately addresses the objectives as follows:

a) The building is generally located parallel to adjacent streets and along the edge of a park or open space with consistent front yard setbacks;

b) It provides additional setbacks or open spaces at the street intersection as described above, by virtue of the curvature of Old York Mills Road. It also provides additional setbacks to the west from parks and natural areas;

c) Main building entrances have been located on the prominent building facades so that they front onto a public street, are clearly visible and directly accessible from a public street;

d) Ground floor uses, such as the lobby, community assembly space and the church have been articulated with clear windows and entrances that allow views from and, where possible with access to, adjacent streets, parks and open spaces;

e) In terms of comfortable wind conditions and air circulation, a Pedestrian Level Wind Study was prepared in support of the Applications by Gradient [W]ind and found that the wind conditions at grade and at level 3 (common amenity terrace) were acceptable. I have reviewed and rely on this study to conclude that the Proposal conforms with this policy.

70Mr. Kazerouni addressed policies 3.1.3.2 to 3.1.3.8 in the TOP which speak to further site organization principles including open space, privacy to adjacent buildings, vehicular access and parking, and building shape, scale and massing. He opined that the Proposed Development provides streetwall heights that respond to the existing context through setbacks and stepbacks, and conforms to many of the principles, including:

a) The proposal provides accessible open space, to the west of the building and on terraces as the building steps up and away from the surrounding context. It is also notable that the development is adjacent to a public park with expanded space as part of the conservation lands.

b) The development protects privacy within adjacent buildings by providing setbacks and as described in earlier sections of this proposal. The design intent for terraces that are created by the step backs is to introduce a ed planted edge that will prevent overlook and keep residents back from the very edge of these terraces.

c) Vehicle parking, vehicular access and ramps, loading, servicing, storage areas, and utilities have been designed to minimize their impact and improve the safety and attractiveness of the public realm, the site and surrounding by:

• Eliminating one of the two existing curb cuts on Campbell Crescent and in doing so, consolidating and minimizing the width of driveways and curb cuts across the public sidewalk;

• integrating services and utility functions within the proposed buildings

• providing underground parking

• limiting new, and removing existing, surface parking and vehicular access between the front face of a building and the public street or sidewalk; and

• limiting above-ground parking structures, integrating them within the building, and providing active uses and attractive building facades along adjacent streets, parks and open spaces.

71Mr. Kazerouni addressed policies 3.1.3.9 and 3.1.3.10 which address improving the public realm through building design. He advised that the Proposed Development addresses these policies as the design of the building façades visible from the public realm consider the scale, proportion, materiality and rhythm of the façade. He added that the Proposed Development includes:

a. Improvements to adjacent boulevards and sidewalks through enhanced setbacks, which prioritize street trees and may include one or more of the following: shrubs, hedges, plantings or other ground cover, permeable paving materials, furniture including seating in various forms, curb ramps, waste and recycling containers, energy efficient lighting and bicycle parking facilities; [and]

b. Co-ordinated landscape improvements in setbacks to enhance local character, fit with public streetscapes, and provide attractive, safe transitions between the private and public realms;

72Addressing policies 3.1.4.4 to 3.1.4.6 of the TOP which provide guidance on the design of mid-rise buildings, Mr. Kazerouni opined that the Proposed Development addresses the principles outlined, and the objectives of the Mid-Rise Guidelines, related to heights being generally no greater than the width of the road right-of-way that it fronts on. He proffered that the Proposed Development addresses the principles “in a qualitative rather than a quantitative manner” and noted that “[b]y strict definition the building is a tall midrise (and not a mid-rise building) that meets the intent of the policies”. He contended that “the proportion that should be reviewed is from building face to building face rather than the width of the right-of-way because this is what will be perceptible in the built form context”, noting that a side bar in section 3.1.3 of the TOP states that “[s]treet proportion is the ratio of the height of buildings along the edges of the street and the distance between buildings across the street”. Further, he noted that the side bar also states that “[g]ood street proportion will be implemented through a number of measures including setbacks, building heights, pedestrian perception zones, streetwall heights, base building heights and step-backs”.

73Mr. Kazerouni noted that angular planes are one measure of the performance of mid-rise buildings and streetwall height, good street proportion, setbacks, stepbacks sidewalk width suitable for tree planting and mitigating shadow impacts are collectively other measures of the performance of mid-rise buildings. In this respect, he proffered that many of these measures are deployed in the built form of the Proposed Development, such as:

• “additional stepbacks at levels 5 and 10, which permits the building to achieve good street proportion and open views of the sky from the public realm by stepping back its massing with greater stepbacks than those recommended by the Mid-Rise Guidelines in some cases”;

• “appropriately scaled streetwall heights”;

• the taller portions of the mid-rise building are setback significantly from the principal streetwall, and in many instances are in excess of the recommended setbacks in the Mid-Rise Guidelines to improve pedestrian perception.

74Mr. Kazerouni added that the TOP and the Mid-Rise Guidelines recognize that building height is only one aspect of regulating building design and that additional methods include minimum building height requirements, minimum ground floor heights, front façade pedestrian perception stepbacks, front façade alignments built to applicable setback lines, transition to Neighbourhoods, minimum sidewalk zones, building width and articulations, at grade uses, exterior building materials, façade design and articulations, vehicular access, loading and servicing requirements and fine grain fabric requirements. He indicated that these objectives have been adequately addressed, and for the reasons provided, Mr. Kazerouni opined that the Proposed Development adequately addresses the principles and objectives of the Mid-Rise Guidelines and the TOP policies in relation to mid-rise buildings.

TOP – Built Form Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

75Mr. Mills addressed the massing of the Proposed Building and proffered that, commencing at the fifth floor, the built form “extends straight up, providing a 17m setback from the south property line” which does not meet the 45-degree angular plane provision in the Mid-Rise Design Guidelines.

76With respect to the east elevation, Mr. Mills opined that the proposed 3 m setback of the church naïve and the residential lobby is problematic as it “adversely encroaches upon the public realm, and limits the capacity to provide an adequate tree canopy”. He thought that a 6 m setback, “that is commensurate with Campbell Crescent being a local neighbourhood street, would provide a more adequate transition between the scale of the development and the residential character of Campbell Crescent” and provide an opportunity for landscaping and a tree canopy along Campbell Crescent.

77Mr. Mills advanced concerns related to the proposed 1 m setback at the northwest corner of the Property. He found that the setback is “narrow and problematic” and that “the solution may reside in further study and possibly utilising a cutaway of the main and second floor at this critical juncture”. He proffered that there is no need for such a reduced setback along Old York Mills Road as there are no commercial uses proposed. He also stated that the geometry of Old York Mills Road along the frontage of the Property “provides for a substantial separation between the proposed building and the roadway itself”.

78Regarding the west elevation facing Jolly Miller Park, Mr. Mills noted that the adjacency of the park is “a significant asset feature” that is not being “utilised in this instance” and does not provide for a direct pedestrian link to the YM Subway Station. He added that he had concerns regarding the significant elevation bordering the park and proffered that with an eight-storey building there would be opportunity for an increased setback on the west property line. He opined that this elevation requires further study involving both architectural and landscaping considerations that “engages the co-operation of both the developer and the TRCA”.

79With respect to section 3.1.3 in the TOP addressing built form within the existing and planned context (which Mr. Mills referred to as section 3.1.2 throughout his evidence and in his witness statement), Mr. Mills proffered that the proposed RA Zone becomes the planned context of the Property. He added that the RA Zone required setback of 6 m from Campbell Crescent should be maintained. Similarly, he opined that the 3 m setback on the west side of the Property next to Jolly Miller Park was not sufficient.

80With respect to policy 3.1.3.9 in the TOP related to the design of new building façades visible from the public realm being required to consider the “scale, proportion, materiality and rhythm of the façades”, Mr. Mills had concerns with the materiality of the “cantilevering shapes” along the Campbell Crescent frontage protruding into the 3 m setback by 2.5 m at a certain height and being constructed of “sheer glass”. In his opinion this would conflict with the residential character and “would have a lot of problems” in terms of constraining light from angled glass that extends down to the ground level.

81Policy 3.1.3.10 in the TOP relates to development providing “amenity for pedestrians in the public realm to make areas adjacent to streets, parks and open spaces attractive, interesting, comfortable and functional” through measures including “prioritizing street trees” and “landscape improvements in setbacks” among others. Mr. Mills noted that there are no street trees planned for the Campbell Crescent frontage which would create a barren streetscape. He postulated that increasing the setback to 6 m would provide room for street trees.

82Mr. Mills addressed section 3.1.4 in the TOP to point out that mid-rise buildings are to be designed to “have heights generally no greater than the width of the right-of-way that it fronts onto” and opined that the density of the site should not be more than that of the development to the north at 10 Old York Mills Road, which he calculated to be a Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 3.0. Based on the net site area after the western portion is dedicated to TRCA and combined with a 6 m setback to Campbell Crescent and an FSI of 3.0, he opined that a building height of eight storeys would provide some latitude to increase setbacks and partially follow the Mid-Rise Design Guidelines.

83Mr. Mills stated that he “had no problem” with the proposed angular plane along the south property line but had concerns regarding the lack of an angular plane along the west property line facing Jolly Miller Park. He had additional concerns that the side yard along the park edge would be utilized as a side yard; whereas in his opinion, it is one of the “principle faces of the building”.

TOP – Built Form Policies – Analysis and Findings

84The Tribunal prefers the testimony of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kazerouni and agrees that the Proposed Development has been designed to appropriately balance accommodating a form, building mass and density that is compatible with the existing and planned context and provides an appropriate transition to adjacent land uses in terms of intensity and scale. By maintaining a 45-degree angular plane up to the fourth floor on the south elevation, with stepbacks on the upper floors, the Tribunal is satisfied that the built form adjacent to the Neighbourhoods designation to the south is appropriate.

85With respect to the west property line, the Tribunal accepts that both the City and TRCA are satisfied with the Proposed Development in terms of its interface with Jolly Miller Park.

86The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kazerouni that the transition along Campbell Crescent is appropriate given the menu of options provided in the TOP related to transition in scale that can be applied contextually.

87The Tribunal is confident that the SPA process will further ensure the satisfaction of the built form policies of the TOP, which acknowledge the adjacency of different scales of development and provide for measures to transition between areas of different development intensity and scale.

TOP – Parks and Open Spaces Policies

TOP – Parks and Open Spaces Policies – Appellant Evidence

88In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg cited section 3.2.3, and in particular, policies 3.2.3.6, 3.2.3.7, 3.2.3.8, 3.2.3.9, 3.2.3.10, 3.2.3.11, 3.2.3.12 and 3.2.3.13 of the TOP as providing direction concerning a number of objectives relating to parks and open spaces.

89It is noted that the policies cited in Mr. Goldberg’s witness statement are not the Parks and Open Spaces policies from section 3.2.3 of the TOP, but rather are the Built Form policies found in section 3.1.3. However, the reference to section 3.2.3 is correct, and his opinion on the Parks and Open Spaces policies was that the Proposed Development:

…satisfactorily conforms with the Parks and Open Space policies because the proposal provides for an appropriate transition in scale and intensity within the area context and to the neighbouring lands, including the park. Shadow impacts are minimal on the adjacent park and are experienced in the morning hours only. The inclusion of active at-grade uses contributes to a more vibrant public realm on the adjacent sidewalks and within the adjacent park. The expanded park will contribute to the inclusion of additional passive recreational space in the area. The provision of both indoor and outdoor amenity area within the proposal satisfies City requirements and is appropriately located.

90Mr. Kazerouni proffered that the Proposed Development addresses the criteria in section 3.2.3 of the TOP and noted that it has been massed and sited to adequately limit the impact of the development on adjacent properties and open spaces from a shadow, noise, traffic and wind perspective and that the stepped nature of the built form diminishes the size of the floor plate and thereby its shadow impact on adjacent properties and open spaces.

91With respect to shadows, Mr. Kazerouni noted that a large part of the park and the low-rise neighbourhood are to the south of the Property and would not be impacted by shadows, and that where shadows are cast, they do not linger for extended periods of time as demonstrated in the Shadow Study.

92With respect to noise, Mr. Kazerouni advised that all parking and loading spaces are internalized to minimize the noise impact from vehicles and service-related functions in these spaces. He noted that he had reviewed the Witness Statement of Brian Chapnik and adopted his evidence in relation to noise.

93Mr. Kazerouni characterized the dedication of the floodplain portion of the Property and the 7 m buffer as a public benefit and adds area to the adjacent park that could be augmented with tree planting.

TOP – Parks and Open Spaces Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

94Mr. Mills did not address the Parks and Open Spaces policies in his witness statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

TOP – Parks and Open Spaces Policies – Analysis and Findings

95The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kazerouni related to the Parks and Open Spaces policies in the TOP, and as stated in paragraph [85], the Tribunal accepts that both the City and TRCA are satisfied with the Proposed Development in terms of its interface with Jolly Miller Park. In addition, the dedication of the floodplain lands to form an extension of the park will provide additional passive recreational space in the area.

TOP – Housing Policies

TOP – Housing Policies – Appellant Evidence

96Mr. Goldberg described the area to the south and southeast of the Property designated ‘Neighbourhoods’ as being exclusively single detached dwellings with townhouses and apartment buildings at the edges of the neighbourhood. He addressed policy 3.2.1.1 in the TOP which states that a “full range of housing, in terms of form, tenure and affordability, across the City and within neighbourhoods, will be provided and maintained to meet the current and future needs of residents”. He drew attention to wording “and within neighbourhoods” to note that the Proposed Development will augment the edge of the neighbourhood, which is well-served by public transit and other services, with a variety of dwelling types including studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom units, providing a greater choice of housing opportunities, as well as addressing the City’s Growing Up Guidelines and the City’s 2023 Housing Pledge adopted by City Council.

97In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg states that the Proposed Development conforms to the Housing policies.

TOP – Housing Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

98Mr. Mills did not address the Housing policies in his witness statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

TOP – Housing Policies – Analysis and Findings

99The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg related to the housing policies in the TOP and finds that the Proposed Development will provide much needed additional housing and a greater choice of housing opportunities in an area which is well-served by public transit.

TOP – Natural Heritage Policies

TOP – Natural Heritage Policies – Appellant Evidence

100Mr. Goldberg briefly addressed the Natural Heritage policies in section 3.4 of the TOP to state that, as the redevelopment of the Property will remove the existing building from the floodplain, the Proposed Development satisfactorily addresses the Natural Heritage policies by:

• dedicating the western portion of the Property, consisting of the on-site flood storage area and the buffer lands, to TRCA;

• providing a 7.0 m buffer from the relocated regional storm floodline;

• rezoning the expanding park and Natural Heritage area as Open Space; and

• providing a 3.0 m building setback from the new lot line.

101Additionally, he addressed policy 3.4.8 which directs development to be set back 10 m from certain natural hazards and confirmed that, with the 7.0 m buffer from the relocated regional storm floodline and the 3.0 m building setback from the new lot line abutting the parkland, the policy will be met. He added that TRCA supported the proposal in this regard.

102Further, in his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg noted that a Landscape Architecture and Arborist Report, a Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report and an NHIS were prepared to assist in addressing the Natural Heritage policies. The NHIS concluded that the development of the Property “can be completed without measurable negative impacts on the natural heritage features and associated function”.

103Based on his evidence, Mr. Goldberg opined that the Natural Heritage policies of the TOP have been satisfactorily addressed.

TOP – Natural Heritage Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

104Mr. Mills did not address the Natural Heritage policies in his witness statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

TOP – Natural Heritage Policies – Analysis and Findings

105The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg related to the Natural Heritage policies in the TOP and finds that the Natural Heritage policies of the TOP are met through removing the existing building from the floodplain, dedicating the western portion of the Property to TRCA, providing a 7.0 m buffer from the relocated regional storm flood line, rezoning the lands to be dedicated to the ON Zone and providing a 3 m building setback from the new lot line.

TOP – Neighbourhood Area Policies

TOP – Neighbourhood Area Policies – Appellant Evidence

106Mr. Goldberg addressed the ‘Neighbourhood Area’ policies from the perspective of the adjacent ‘Neighbourhood Area’ designation and noted that the ‘Mixed Use Areas’ and ‘Apartment Neighbourhoods’ designations to the north and east are occupied by taller and more intense forms of buildings compared to the internal low-rise neighbourhood that consists of single detached dwellings.

107In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg proffered that the Property is “located to afford the opportunity for intensification on the site due to its proximity to existing transit” and “being at the edge of the neighbourhood within its context”. He added that the Proposed Development “has been designed to respect the low-rise nature to the south and east by utilizing setbacks and stepbacks to the building to provide for an appropriate transition” and that it “respects the existing character of the area, introduces an appropriate built form, in a prime intensification location, and provides a mix of uses that will serve the surrounding community and beyond”.

TOP – Neighbourhood Area Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

108Mr. Mills drew attention to policy 4.1.8 of the TOP which states that zoning by-laws contain, among other things, “performance standards to ensure that new development will be compatible with the physical character of established residential Neighbourhoods” and policy 4.1.9 of the TOP related to infill development on properties that vary from the local pattern in terms of lot size, configuration and/or orientation.

109Mr. Mills opined that, when looking to redesignate from a Neighbourhoods designation to an Apartment Neighbourhoods designation, it is important to look at how the transition happens. He posited that if it is not possible for the Proposed Development to respect the neighbourhood, then he questions whether it is appropriate. He stopped short of stating that the Proposed Development was not appropriate.

TOP – Neighbourhood Area Policies – Analysis and Findings

110The Property is at the edge of the Neighbourhoods designation and is being proposed to be redesignated to Apartment Neighbourhoods. The Tribunal finds that this is a key distinction that separates it from other sites that may be subject to the Neighbourhoods designation upon redevelopment. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Goldberg’s assessment that the Proposed Development is an appropriate built form for the Property being at the edge of the Neighbourhood designation and close to other similar built forms to the north and in close proximity to the YM Subway Station.

TOP – Apartment Neighbourhood Policies

TOP – Apartment Neighbourhood Policies – Appellant Evidence

111With respect to the Apartment Neighbourhood policies, Mr. Goldberg drew attention to the criteria in policy 4.2.2 regarding development in Apartment Neighbourhoods and opined that the criteria are met as:

a) The proposal’s heights, massing and scale is respectful of the nearby residential properties including the 10 storey building to the north and the townhomes to the east that are within the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation;

b) The proposal’s setbacks from adjacent residential properties and the public park is respectful of the adjacent properties and takes into account the existing form of development on the infill property;

c) The proposal provides adequate privacy, sunlight and sky views for its occupants and the landscaping is well designed to enhance to public realm;

d) The proposal fronts onto the existing public streets with no gates limiting public access;

e) The proposal provides a safe 2.5 m pedestrian boulevard at the north and east; and

f) The proposal’s service areas and parking are internalized and underground to minimize the impact on the existing streets and on residences.

112Mr. Goldberg added that in terms of animation of the street, the Proposed Development is an enhancement over the existing condition, and noted that accessibility is an Ontario Building Code requirement and is incorporated into the Proposed Development. He added that, related to the modal split of vehicle and bicycle parking, the City-adopted TGS includes bicycle parking as part of the transportation demand management measures and the Proposed Development meets the TGS in that regard.

TOP – Apartment Neighbourhood Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

113Mr. Mills addressed policy 4.2.2 and opined that there are different scales and intensity of development surrounding the Property. With respect to maintaining sunlight, he advised that he accepts the shadow study that was undertaken and does not think it will create significant adverse impacts. He added that in terms of providing sufficient off-street vehicle and bicycle parking, since the future activities of the church have yet to be determined, it is not possible to determine whether there is sufficient parking. Addressing the requirement for “locating and screening service areas, ramps and garbage storage” to minimize the impact on adjacent streets and residences, he suggested that the entrance to the underground parking would be better accommodated from Old York Mills Road as Campbell Crescent is a neighbourhood street.

TOP – Apartment Neighbourhood Policies – Analysis and Findings

114The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Goldberg related to the Apartment Neighbourhood policies and finds that the criteria in policy 4.2.2 are satisfactorily met.

TOP – Environmentally Sustainable Development

TOP – Environmentally Sustainable Development – Appellant Evidence

115Mr. Kazerouni addressed policy 5.1.3.3 in the TOP regarding environmentally sustainable development as part of the Site Plan Control policies, and noted that the Proposed Development incorporates the following sustainable design features, thereby meeting the intent of this policy:

a) weather-protected on-site bicycle areas and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure are provided to encourage cycling and walking as clean-air alternatives;

b) high-albedo surface materials, open grid paving, shade trees, green and cool roofs to reduce ambient surface temperature will be provided to minimize the urban heat island effect;

c) energy efficient exterior cladding material and window treatments are introduced that limit the percentage of glass on the building face and improve efficiency, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

d) stormwater management tanks are introduced at the P1 level for rainwater harvesting;

f) bird friendly glass treatment is introduced at the lower levels to ensure that risk for migratory bird collisions is minimized;

g) energy efficient, shielded exterior lighting has been provided to reduce nighttime glare and light trespass; and

h) dedicated areas for collection and storage of recycling and organic waste to reduce solid waste.

TOP – Environmentally Sustainable Development – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

116Mr. Mills did not address policy 5.1.3.3 in the TOP in his witness statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

TOP – Environmentally Sustainable Development – Analysis and Findings

117The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Kazerouni and finds that the Proposed Development meets the environmentally sustainable development policy in the TOP.

TOP – OPA 544 and Site and Area Specific Policy 639

TOP – OPA 544 and Site and Area Specific Policy 639 – Appellant Evidence

118Mr. Goldberg did not address OPA 544 and Site and Area Specific Policy 639 (“SASP 639”) in his witness statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

TOP – OPA 544 and Site and Area Specific Policy 639 – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

119Mr. Mills addressed OPA 544 as adopted by the City on July 22, 2022, in relation to Site and Area Specific policies established to protect eleven Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSA”) including seven Protected Major Transit Station Areas (“PMTSA”). One of the PMTSAs, covered by SASP 639, is centered around the YM Subway Station and includes the Property. He advised that SASP 639 plans for a minimum population and employment target of 85 residents and jobs combined per hectare. He compared that target to the proposed target for the Property of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare, which he noted was the target of most of the 133 MTSAs covered in OPA 544, but not the target covered by SASP 639. Mr. Mills offered that his clients acknowledge that intensity will occur on the Property but that an appropriate form might be townhouses which would be permitted in the Neighbourhoods designation.

120Mr. Mills took the Tribunal through a series of charts he prepared comparing the 133 MTSAs and noting where the YM Subway Station fit in terms of the population and employment targets. The charts did not have x- and y-axis labels and it was not clear at the time what the y-axis denoted. Although it was subsequently clarified that the y-axis represented the minimum density targets, during cross-examination he confirmed that OPA 544 had not yet been approved by the Province and that, given the Applications were filed before OPA 544 was adopted/approved, the Clergy Principle applies and OPA 544 would therefore not be applicable to the Applications. He further confirmed that even if OPA 544 was approved and was applicable to the Applications, it sets minimum density requirements but not maximum density requirements.

TOP – OPA 544 and Site and Area Specific Policy 639 – Analysis and Findings

121The Tribunal finds that OPA 544 does not apply to the Applications given the Clergy Principle, its unapproved status and further, as it only sets minimum density requirements. As such, no weight or regard is applied to the evidence related to SASP 639.

TOP Summary Opinion

TOP Summary Opinion – Appellant Evidence

122Mr. Goldberg provided his summary opinion that, with reliance on Mr. Kazerouni’s and Mr. Chan’s evidence, the Proposed Development “will implement and satisfy the policies of the City OP and is therefore in conformity with the City OP”.

TOP Summary Opinion – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

123Mr. Mills provided an extensive review of the neighbourhood context through a review of his visual evidence noting the current characteristics of Campbell Crescent and Old York Mills Road, the surrounding land uses as well as the built forms and existing streetscapes along both streets. He spoke to the existing conditions of the parking on the Property and along the streets. He was concerned with the 3 m setback from Campbell Crescent compared to the minimum 6 m setbacks for the existing detached dwellings on Campbell Crescent and the lack of street trees along the Campbell Crescent frontage. He was also concerned with the relationship of the built form to the surrounding neighbourhood and opined that the Proposed Development “will be lit up like a car dealership” and will have a “hardscape space” along Campbell Crescent.

124Mr. Mills summarized the main concerns of the Proposed Development as follows:

• the scale of the development being incompatible with “Campbell Crescent’s character”;

• the driveway access being on Campbell Crescent;

• the increase in gross floor area, and the associated potential for a “broader catchment area of users” of the church facilities resulting in an increased parking demand that is not accounted for, resulting in overflow parking on the neighbourhood streets;

• the built form being problematic in terms of its height, density and massing as it relates to the adjacent Neighbourhoods designation;

• the built form should be a “lesser order built form” than the development at 10 York Mills Road to the north of the Property;

• the “[o]pen-ended assertions about greater intensities being appropriate around major transit stations” and those assertions needing “to be considered within the context of the Official Plan as a whole”; and

• the proposed intensity of the Property being beyond the planned context and therefore requiring an appropriate planning justification for the planned intensity as per policy 5.6.13.b) of the TOP. He proffered that he had not seen such appropriate planning justification regarding the proposed height and density.

125With respect to the proposed community centre space of the church use, Mr. Mills had concerns related to the types of uses that may arise such as election polling stations. In addition, he had concerns related to the proposed daycare facility as ZBL 569 requires daycares to be located on the ground floor and the draft ZBA does not abide by this requirement, and the facility is proposed to be a “multi-level operation” creating “very difficult operations” requiring “a high level of diligence” with the added component of underground parking.

126Mr. Mills also addressed the level of intensification proposed for the Property and compared it to the intensification that occurred at 10 Old York Mills Road based on many factors and opined that the Proposed Development should have fewer storeys and a lower height but did not draw further opinion based on the other factors. His conclusion regarding the proposed intensification was that it represents an “over-intensification” and, rather than “respect[ing] and reinforc[ing] the existing character of Campbell Crescent as a local neighbourhood street”, the “intensity of the proposed development fails to establish a compatible relationship with Campbell Crescent”. In his witness statement, he furthered that the adjacency of the Property to the YM Subway Station “is not a blanket justification, it still requires assessing an appropriate degree of intensification”.

TOP Summary Opinion – Analysis

127The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kazerouni with respect to the TOP on the basis of the previous analysis of the various sections and policies of the TOP and finds that the Proposed Development is in conformity with TOP.

Mid-Rise Design Guidelines – YMVA Issue 5

Mid-Rise Design Guidelines – Appellant Evidence

128In his witness statement Mr. Goldberg advised that, at 11 storeys in height with stepbacks to the south and southeast, the Proposed Development “is not currently captured or guided in either the City’s Tall Building Guidelines nor the Mid-Rise Guidelines. He added that “[t]o distinguish a tall building from a mid-rise building, the Tall Building Guidelines state that a building is deemed to be a tall building if the height exceeds the width of the right-of-way”. As the right-of-way width along Old York Mills Road is 20 m and the proposed height of the building to the top of the roof of the 11th floor is 35.7 m, it was his opinion that the Proposed Development “takes on a taller mid-rise vernacular”. He furthered that “the design of the building more closely reflects a mid-rise building form as its upper floors are limited in size and the upper floors are stepped back from the lower portions of the building”. It was his opinion therefore that the Tall Building Guidelines should not be applied to the proposed building.

129Addressing the Mid-Rise Guidelines, Mr. Goldberg opined that they also do not apply, but that key urban design principles of the Mid-Rise Guidelines have been considered in the design of the Proposed Development. He added that “[i]t is recognized that a qualitative approach has been utilized in the absence of applicable guidelines for the proposed built form”. He further added that, “[i]n this instance, it is important for midrise buildings to fit into a variety of existing contexts and contribute positively to the overall character recognizing that building height is only one aspect of regulating good building design”. He stated that additional measures include “minimum ground floor heights, provision of sunlight onto sidewalks, step-backs, setbacks, pedestrian realm treatments, streetscape design, and building articulation”.

130In his testimony, Mr. Goldberg opined that the Proposed Development is a “tall mid-rise” building typology which is not captured by the Tall Building Guidelines nor the Mid-Rise Guidelines but which has evolved since the approval of the TOP, and in this respect, the principles of the guidelines may apply but the guidelines themselves do not.

131In his witness statement, Mr. Goldberg opined that, through the provision of active at-grade uses, exterior building materials, and appropriate locations for vehicular access, loading, and servicing functions, “a good building design is achieved that is contextually appropriate”.

132Mr. Kazerouni also addressed the Mid-Rise Design Guidelines in paragraphs [72] to [74] finding that the Proposed Development adequately addresses the principles and objectives of the Mid-Rise Guidelines and the TOP policies in relation to mid-rise buildings.

Mid-Rise Design Guidelines – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

133Mr. Mills advised that the Mid-Rise Design Guidelines were developed for developments on an ‘Avenue’, which the Property is not. He furthered that the Guidelines establish a 45-degree angular plane and the height is established based on the width of the street allowance. As both Old York Mills Road and Campbell Crescent have a right-of-way width of 20 m, this would result in a building height of 20 m, resulting in a six-storey building.

134Mr. Mills agreed with Mr. Goldberg that the Mid-Rise Design Guidelines are “a tool in the toolbox”, as are all the Guidelines, but proffered that the Proposed Development doesn’t respect the 45-degree angular plane on the west property line abutting Jolly Miller Park, or on the south property line beyond the fourth floor. He opined that further study is required to determine an optimum building profile.

135In his witness statement, Mr. Mills opined that “a solution along the lines of the the [sic] Midrise Guidelines would be an appropriate and desirable outcome for this development proposal” but added that he is not suggesting that the Guidelines have to be followed precisely.

136With respect to the “tall mid-rise” building typology terminology, Mr. Mills opined that it is not appropriate in this location as Old York Mills Road is not an ‘Avenues’ designated arterial road having a right-of-way width greater than 20 m, the adjacent land uses to the south and east are low-rise, to the west is Jolly Miller Park and the development to the north has frontage on an arterial road and is separated from the neighbourhood by a street. He added that the Property is adjacent to a low-density neighbourhood to the south and is borne out of the low-density neighbourhood.

Mid-Rise Design Guidelines – Analysis

137The Tribunal prefers the testimony of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kazerouni and agrees that the Proposed Development represents a “tall mid-rise” building typology not envisioned through the Tall Building Guidelines nor the Mid-Rise Guidelines but that the principles of the guidelines apply. In this respect, the Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development is contextually appropriate and provides a good building design respecting the principles of the guidelines.

Transportation – YMVA Issues 8-12 and THHCA Issues 7-11

Transportation – Appellant Evidence

138Mr. Chan advised the Tribunal that he undertook and co-wrote a Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) to assess potential traffic operations and parking related impacts on the Property.

139Mr. Chan noted that the area is supported by walkable access to transit, and limited parking is being proposed in response to the recent amendments to ZBL 569 removing the minimum parking requirements in most cases and imposing maximum parking requirements. In this regard, he anticipated that “future automobile dependence will be considerably lower during typical weekday AM and PM peak periods, as the site contains some inherent features that reduce automobile ownership dependence”. He further noted that due to the revised building design which removed a commercial component of the Proposed Development, the forecasted trips pertaining to commercial uses in the TIS are no longer relevant and the calculated total net new automobile trips is considered an overestimate.

140Mr. Chan also noted that:

• the access to the Proposed Development from the south end of the frontage along Campbell Crescent will improve the current level of safety offered by the existing configuration with two site accesses; and

• there is existing congestion with some traffic movements at the Yonge Street and Wilson Avenue / York Mills Road intersection and capacity constraints at the Yonge Street and Old York Mills Road intersection.

141Mr. Chan anticipated that “future automobile dependence will be considerably lower during typical weekday AM and PM peak periods, as the site contains some inherent features that reduce automobile ownership dependence”. He also advised that the TIS noted minimal impacts due to additional vehicular queues within the study area intersections as a result of the Proposed Development.

142Mr. Chan advised that the proposed parking supply of 52 resident spaces, or a blended residential rate of 0.50 spaces/unit, “complies with the various residential maximum automobile parking rates outlined in the ZBL based on [the] amount of bedrooms per unit”.

143Regarding potential overflow parking considerations, Mr. Chan noted that there are two paid parking lots along Yonge Street within walking distance of the Property, although, in his Reply Witness Statement, he advised that one of the parking lots will not be available as it is scheduled for redevelopment.

144It was Mr. Chan’s opinion that “traffic operational impacts caused by the proposed development are expected to be minimal and the proposed parking supply is appropriate”.

145Mr. Chan opined that the proposed PU/DO location, being “underground at the first level, placed as close to the elevator lobby as possible”, “improves the safety and attractiveness of the site as it allows PUDO activities to functionally occur off-street”. He advised that the City has requested that a PUS be provided to the City prior to issuance of the Tribunal’s Final Order, to address the sufficiency of the number of PU/DO spaces provided.

146With respect to YMVA Issue 9, Mr. Chan opined that the vehicular access points and site circulation are appropriate for the following reasons:

• regardless of whether the access point to the Property is on Campbell Crescent or on Old York Mills Road, the outbound site traffic destined southbound on Yonge Street would tend to prefer to travel south on Campbell Crescent to the signal controlled intersection at Mill Street and Yonge Street rather than to the stop sign controlled intersection at Old York Mills Road and Yonge Street, due to the longer wait time for gaps in Yonge Street traffic compared to waiting at a traffic signal; and

• the “AutoTURN functional turnpath analysis has demonstrated that a City garbage truck, typical delivery truck, and private automobiles can enter and exit the site in an efficient manner”.

147With respect to YMVA Issue 10, Mr. Chan opined that:

…the forecasted traffic volumes contained in the TIS were conservatively generated, where a Transportation Tomorrow Survey derived area trip modal split was applied to the proposed development, despite the site being closer to TTC subway service than the majority of other neighbouring residential areas. Furthermore, the trip generation methodology was derived using the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards, which is a general industry reference and, in [his] opinion, does not adequately reflect recent developments to the City’s ZBL amendments which limit the amount of parking supply for new developments. Furthermore, it is expected that the Applicant will inform visitors to utilize other modes of travel and/or park in the adjacent overflow parking lots.

148With respect to YMVA Issue 11, Mr. Chan noted that there are no traffic impacts that will create unsafe conditions post-development. He stated that his analysis determined that existing Campbell Crescent traffic, at the Property’s two existing access points onto Campbell Crescent and at the intersection of Campbell Crescent and Old York Mills Road, “performs with low delays and with sufficient residual capacity to accommodate more traffic volumes”. Further, he opined that traffic forecasted to be generated by the Proposed Development during typical weekday AM and PM peak hours was conservatively estimated, and that Campbell Crescent can accommodate the future weekday AM and PM peak hour site traffic volumes. Additionally, there are existing traffic calming speed bumps and a 30 kilometer per hour speed limit in the immediate vicinity.

149With respect to THHCA Issue 8, Mr. Chan advised that the proposed driveway location at the south end of the Property on Campbell Crescent does not create safety concerns and was redesigned to an angle that further reduces safety concerns.

150Mr. Chan concluded by offering his opinion that the “Revised Proposal is appropriate from a transportation perspective and [he] would recommend that it be approved by the Tribunal”.

Transportation – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

151Mr. Tedesco undertook a peer review of Mr. Chan’s TIS and began his testimony noting areas he and Mr. Chan were in agreement, including:

• the automobile modal split used to represent the Proposed Development’s forecasted future site traffic;

• the directional distribution forecast for trips to and from the Property;

• the AutoTURN analysis results;

• that the traffic generation estimate is conservatively high due to the original inclusion of commercial space in the Proposed Development;

• that Campbell Crescent will be used for a certain amount of south bound traffic, irrespective of where the entrance is located;

• that the traffic impact analysis undertaken by Mr. Chan was comprehensive;

• that the traffic generated from the Proposed Development can be accommodated by the road network; and

• that the Synchro traffic analysis was conservative.

152Mr. Tedesco disagreed with Mr. Chan’s assertion that the traffic volume estimations are superior to drone evidence for estimating delays in queues, that observations of 20-minute peak periods are not relevant and estimates should only be based on hourly volumes.

153Mr. Tedesco was concerned with the potential for “blockage of left turn entry to southbound Campbell Crescent from Old York Mills Road, which in turn could then back up to York Mills Road” based on the “three car lengths” of storage capacity for vehicles waiting to turn either left or right onto York Mills Road from Old York Mills Road. He showed drone video evidence of three instances, two in the morning and one in the afternoon, of such blockages. In Mr. Tedesco’s opinion, “these situations will be exacerbated if access to the subject property were to be approved via Campbell Crescent”.

154Mr. Tedesco commissioned SkyDeploy Drone Services to undertake the aerial drone video recordings but noted that there were “a number of breaks during the recording”. He provided three instances of blockages of traffic along Old York Mills Road at the intersection of York Mills Road from the three hours of drone video evidence. He opined that such blockages of traffic will occur on a regular basis and will create hazardous circumstances.

155Mr. Tedesco concluded that vehicular access to the Property “would be better located via Old York Mills Road” due to the blockages and due to the “lack of sidewalks along Campbell Crescent”. He opined that “local residents walking to the subway will be exposed (proportionately) to significantly more vehicular traffic than they would if the subject development was required (allowed) to instead take its access via Old York Mills Road”.

156Mr. Tedesco’s analysis showed that access from the Property via Campbell Crescent “would result in an approximately 55 percent increase in traffic along Campbell Crescent oriented to / from Old York Mills Road. Most noticeably would be outbound traffic generated during the AM design hour, which is forecast to increase by 145 percent (~2.5 x)”. In his opinion, “although able to be accommodated from a strictly theoretical capacity perspective, such an increase would be noticeable to the community”, thereby affecting the “stability, general residential amenity and character of the existing, predominately low density residential area along Campbell Crescent”.

157Mr. Tedesco, citing an Ontario Municipal Board decision from 1992 (file number Z 910088) related to a proposed development considered at the “very heart of the [c]ommunity”, opined that “access via Campbell Crescent would affect the ‘heart of the [c]ommunity’, whereas Old York Mills Road access would be located at the ‘outside edge’, where it should be”.

158Mr. Tedesco had concerns related to the “lack of on-site pick-up and drop-off, particularly for the daycare component”. He opined that “[w]ith its limited sidewalks, pick-up and drop-off activity via Campbell Crescent – particularly if it was to occur on the east side – would directly interfere with pedestrian activity of local residents”. Although a PU/DO area is proposed in the underground garage, it is his opinion that “pick-up / drop-off should be located at grade if it is to be an effective alternative to on-street accommodation”.

159Mr. Tedesco provided evidence related to a driveway access from Old York Mills Road and the constraints and possibilities related to such a proposal.

160Mr. Tedesco addressed the “frequency and parking impacts of non-worship events that occasionally occur” and noted concern for “a large community meeting or non-fixed seating plus tables or dining, such as for a large wedding reception(s)” and noted the Ontario Building Code “suggests occupancies of 800 to 1100 for such uses resulting in forecast parking demands of 150 to 300 cars”. He also noted that, “[a]s a reality check”, he “looked at actual banquet halls and the ratios of the floor area in which tables are provided versus the total GFA”. Applying those ratios, his evidence was that “9100 ft² would suggest a banquet facility that could provide 22 tables, accommodate 220 guests (250 with staff) and would generate parking demand of 50 to 75 cars, which is two to three times the proposed supply”. In this regard, it was his opinion that the assembly space “should be reduced to a half or one third of the area proposed, or more parking provided on-site”. He added that, “[a]lthough there is agreement that under overflow conditions there is municipal parking available within a 350 metre walk”, it remained his concern that “use of such overflow parking will occur only after all on-site parking and (illegal) on-street parking is full”.

161Mr. Tedesco opined that, from a traffic and pedestrian safety perspective, “some form of on-site pick-up and drop-off facility should be provided on-site and at-grade”, “vehicular access should be via Old York Mills Road and not via Campbell Crescent” and “either the amount of non-residential parking should be doubled or the proposed “assembly floor area” should be reduced to at least one half”.

Transportation – Analysis

162The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Chan with respect to transportation related issues. Much of Mr. Tedesco’s evidence supported an access to the Property from Old York Mills Road. As expressed earlier in this decision, evidence put forth with respect to a sketch of an alternative, unevaluated built form is not being considered by the Tribunal in the evaluation of the merits of the Proposed Development and the Applications before the Tribunal.

163The evidence provided by Mr. Tedesco based on aerial and dashcam video footage is also not given much weight in the Tribunal’s consideration of the Applications. The breaks during the aerial drone video recordings resulted in discontinuous data collection and, other than the three blockages of traffic during the three hours of drone video evidence, he indicated to the Tribunal that there was no need to watch the remainder of the video evidence as it was fairly uneventful. Regardless, the links to the video recordings and the USB flash drives provided to the Tribunal for the drone video recordings were not accessible. The Tribunal finds that incomplete data collection and illustrating three blockage events in a span of three hours does not equate to a proper traffic analysis. The Tribunal prefers the TIS findings undertaken using standardized traffic impact data from Ontario Traffic Inc. to conduct field turning movement counts (“TMC”) supplemented by pre-Covid historical TMC data provided by the City for the intersections of Yonge Street at York Mills Road and Wilson Avenue, Yonge Street at Old York Mills Road, and York Mills Road at Old York Mills Road.

164Mr. Tedesco’s evidence indicated the location of the access to the Property on Campbell Crescent, the PU/DO location being in the underground parking area, and the amount of non-residential parking as the three main issues with the Proposed Development. Regarding the PU/DO, he did not provide evidence to suggest that it was not supportable, and without such evidence, the Tribunal is left with the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Chan. In that respect, the Tribunal accepts the PU/DO as provided and as to be confirmed through a condition imposed and to be satisfied prior to issuance of the Final Order of the Tribunal. With respect to the amount of non-residential parking, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed parking meets the City zoning requirements and is supported by the City.

165The Tribunal accepts the findings of Mr. Chan that the Proposed Development is appropriate from a transportation perspective.

Flood Risk – THHCA Issue 12

Flood Risk – Appellant Evidence

166Mr. Rapp advised that Campbell Crescent is graded to catch basins that discharge to the storm sewers draining south of Campbell Crescent and that an open channel is proposed along the south limit of the Property to convey the drainage currently conveyed through the site. It was his opinion that the Proposed Development will not adversely impact the drainage from the lands east of the Property and that the drainage channel along the south property line, in conjunction with the City’s storm sewers, will convey the existing drainage from this area, up to the 100-year storm event.

167Mr. Rapp acknowledged on cross-examination that, although he normally undertakes site visits, he had not visited the Property but advised that it was visited by other staff members of the consulting firm he is employed by. He added that the majority of the work he undertook related to sanitary and storm sewers, which are underground, and floodplain analysis, which is better done through mapping. He further advised that visiting the Property would not change his findings or opinion.

Flood Risk – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

168YMVA and THHCA did not have an expert witness to address this issue.

Flood Risk – Analysis

169The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Rapp related to the flood risks and accepts that both the City and TRCA are satisfied with the Proposed Development in terms of flood risks.

Growing Up Guidelines

170As summarized in Mr. Goldberg’s witness statement, the Growing Up Guidelines establish parameters to guide the design of buildings for families through the promotion and provision of “larger units”. The guidelines identify a minimum of 25% large units, of which 10% should be three-bedroom units and 15% should be two-bedroom units.

Growing Up Guidelines – Appellant Evidence

171With respect to the City’s Growing Up Guidelines, in his witness statement Mr. Goldberg advised that the Proposed Development proposes 36.9% two-bedroom units and 11.7% three-bedroom units, well exceeding the guidelines, and also includes a range of unit sizes within each residential unit type category. In his opinion, the Proposed Development has an appropriate regard for the Growing Up Guidelines.

Growing Up Guidelines – Analysis

172The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg related to the Growing Up Guidelines and finds that the Proposed Development has appropriate regard for the guidelines.

Pet Friendly Design Guidelines

173As summarized in Mr. Goldberg’s witness statement, the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines are intended to provide for high-quality pet friendly amenities in private developments. The guidelines apply City-wide to all new multi-unit residential buildings that are required to provide amenity space as a condition of their development approval.

Pet Friendly Design Guidelines – Appellant Evidence

174With respect to the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines, in his witness statement Mr. Goldberg advised that as guidelines, they are intended to provide direction and guidance, but should be afforded discretion and flexibility in application. The guidelines are structured at three scales: the neighbourhood, the building, and the dwelling unit.

175Mr. Goldberg advised that a pet relief area has been incorporated at ground level on the west side of the building and, in his opinion, the Proposed Development has appropriate regard for the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines.

Pet Friendly Design Guidelines – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

176Mr. Mills did not address the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines in his Witness Statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

Pet Friendly Design Guidelines – Analysis

177The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg related to the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and finds that the Proposed Development has appropriate regard for the guidelines.

TRCA Living City Policies

178As summarized in Mr. Goldberg’s Witness Statement, the TRCA Living City policies is a document that guides the implementation of TRCA’s legislated and delegated role providing planning and technical advice to planning authorities to assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities regarding natural hazards pursuant to the Act.

TRCA Living City Policies – Appellant Evidence

179Mr. Goldberg advised that there are key policies of the TRCA Living City policies pertaining to the redevelopment of the Property including those in section 7.2.3 related to the urban landscape, those in section 7.3.1 related to the natural system, those in section 7.3.2 related to conveyance of the natural system into public ownership and those in section 8.4 related to general regulation policies. He noted that supporting studies relating to Stormwater Management and the NHIS have examined these policies and identified that these policies can be satisfied through the Proposed Development.

180With respect to the proposed 10 m buffer to the regional storm floodline, Mr. Goldberg advised that it is required under policy 7.3.1.4 of the TRCA Living City policies and has been identified and accepted by TRCA that a reduction to 7.0 m is acceptable along with a 3.0 m building setback, resulting in a 10.0 m setback from the hazard. In his opinion, the Proposed Development meets the intent of these policies.

TRCA Living City Policies – YMVA and THHCA Evidence

181Mr. Mills did not address the TRCA Living City policies in his Witness Statement or in his evidence before the Tribunal.

TRCA Living City Policies – Analysis

182The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg related to the TRCA Living City policies and finds that a reduced buffer of 7.0 m is acceptable along with a 3.0 m building setback, resulting in a 10.0 m setback from the regional storm floodline to the satisfaction of TRCA and the City.

Participant Statements

183Mr. Goldberg advised the Tribunal that he reviewed the Participant Statements of Richard Galbraith and Phillippa Perkins and, addressing the planning related concerns (related to setbacks, height, shadowing, compatibility and built form), stated that many of the concerns have already been addressed through the IL, but of the remaining concerns of Mr. Galbraith he offered the following comments:

• the height of the Proposed Development will be compatible with the existing surrounding properties and will meet the intent of the Mid-Rise performance standards;

• no retail uses are proposed on the Property;

• the Proposed Building is to be set back 3 m from Campbell Crescent, and not 1 m as suggested;

• the TOP policies do not protect shadow impacts within Mixed-Use Areas or Apartment Neighbourhoods, and there is no ‘right to light’, although the shadow study found that the impacts are adequately limited and the resulting shadowing will not pose any adverse impacts on either 10 Old York Mills Road or 45-53 York Mills Road;

• heat loading is not a planning consideration in an intensification area;

• snow plowing and emergency vehicle access and construction access will be dealt with at the SPA stage;

• floodplain issues have been addressed; and

• storm water issues have been and will continue to be addressed through the SPA stage.

184Mr. Goldberg added that through the SPA the City will require a Construction Management Plan and typically the local Councillor would seek input from local representatives.

185With respect to Ms. Perkins’ Participant Statement, Mr. Goldberg noted that the comments related to the consultation process have some inaccuracies in the characterization of the process and he disagrees with her statements in that regard. He noted that he did not address the remainder of her Participant Statement as it is not related to land use planning. With respect to her concerns related to the TOP, Mr. Goldberg noted that they were addressed through his testimony and he is satisfied that the Proposed Development conforms with the TOP. He noted she added disparaging comments related to the consultants and lawyers having manipulated the process and he chose not to comment on those.

186Mr. Chan addressed Mr. Galbraith’s Participant Statement and noted the following which address relevant concerns that haven’t been addressed elsewhere:

• the TIS considered the mixed-use development approved for 4050 Yonge Street and that “no traffic volumes associated with this background development are expected to enter Old York Mills Road and Campbell Crescent”;

• 2019 pre-Covid data was obtained from the City for the major intersections, and was supplemented with Campbell Crescent traffic data collected in February 2022, which was when Covid-related restrictions were subsiding;

• the “Do Not Block Intersection” signs recommended by the TIS are enforceable by the City;

• the TIS concluded that only minimal traffic impacts to the study area are expected upon completion of the Proposed Development;

• delivery vehicles can be adequately scheduled such that the single Type G loading space can accommodate the site’s various delivery activities without stacking on-site and off-street;

• delivery truck arrivals can be restricted via scheduling restrictions to mitigate interference with City garbage truck activities;

• loading bay truck maneuvers into and out of the loading bay can be completed in a reasonably short time frame, such that parking garage drivers will not be significantly inconvenienced to get into or out of the Property;

• an ‘AutoTURN Swept Path Functional Plan’ will be provided to the City demonstrating that delivery vehicles can enter and circulate the site and utilize the loading and parking areas to the satisfaction of the City before the Tribunal issues its Final Order. The AutoTURN Plans will demonstrate that a delivery vehicle, City garbage truck, City fire truck, and automobiles can functionally enter and circulate the Property;

• there is currently “no stopping” and “no parking” signage along the frontage of the site on Old York Mills Road, which is enforceable by the City. Non-compliant parking on Old York Mills Road should be addressed via municipal by-law enforcement action;

• no “rolling of [waste and recycling] bins” will be necessary as the City garbage truck can enter the loading bay to collect waste and recycling; and

• Old York Mills Road and Campbell Crescent are to serve as the fire route.

Conclusions

187It was Mr. Goldberg’s evidence that the Applications are consistent with the applicable policies of the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan and the policies of the TOP, represent good land use planning and should be approved. In addition, he confirmed that he is satisfied with the proposed conditions of final approval of the Applications if the Tribunal were to approve the Applications in principle.

188Mr. Mills concluding opinion is that the Proposed Development represents “excessive intensification” based on the following considerations:

• it is not located on a principal thoroughfares,

• its adverse impacts on it surrounding context,

• its extrication from the Neighbourhood without any reflection of having belonged in it,

• its failure to maintain Campbell Crescent's character as a local neighbourhood street, and

• that approving this project in its current revised form would not represent good planning.

189Mr. Mills also provided his opinion that the Property is suitable for an “apartment building including a church, daycare and residential units – so long as cumulatively – the following considerations are addressed”:

• that the building consist of not more than 8 levels having a cumulative height of 26.55m

• that its density not exceed 10 Old York Mills Road's gross floor area ratio of FSI–3.0

• that the proposal's driveway ramp is relocated to coming off of Old York Mills Road

• that a tree lined 6m setback is provided along the Campbell Crescent

• that the daycare is relocated to grade with an effective drop-off facility provided at grade.

SUMMARY ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

190The Tribunal finds that the Applications have regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS and conform with the Growth Plan as it is located within a settlement area with municipal services, and provides for intensification, higher densities, an efficient use of land and infrastructure, and a range and mix of housing types.

191Given the wording in section 4.6 of the PPS, that the official plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of the PPS, the Tribunal carefully considered the testimony of all the witnesses in the analysis of the TOP and finds that the Applications are consistent with the policies of the TOP. This is supported by the settlement of the appeals with the City and TRCA.

192The Tribunal finds that the Applications represent good land use planning and are in the public interest, subject to the implementation of the City’s conditions included in the Order clause below.

INTERIM ORDER

193THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Official Plan Amendment appeal is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [195] below, and the Official Plan for the City of Toronto, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, is hereby approved in principle.

194THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Zoning By-law Amendment appeal is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [195] below, and the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order and to amend Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order, are hereby approved in principle.

195The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:

• The Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church has provided the City with a Parking Utilization Study to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services.

• The Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church has provided the City with updated Vehicle Maneuvering diagrams to demonstrate the functionality of the driveway access at Campbell Crescent to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services.

• The Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church has provided the City with a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services. The Transportation Demand Management Plan will outline the existing Transportation Demand Management opportunities as well as future opportunities to reduce traffic by approximately 25%, such as, but not necessarily all the following:

o The promotion of transit use and carpooling;

o The promotion of active transportation;

o A bike share station with the capacity for eight (8) bikes; and

o The provision of pre-loaded “PRESTO” transit cards to residents upon move-in.

• The Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church has satisfactorily addressed the Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated September 14, 2022, or as may be updated through the review of the revised material submitted in response to such memorandum, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer.

• If it is determined that the hydro pole at the southeast corner of the site is required to be moved to facilitate the driveway access on Campbell Crescent, the Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church agrees to facilitate this process at its own reasonable cost and through negotiations with the necessary public authorities, including Toronto Hydro.

• The final form and content of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

196The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final form of the draft instruments and the issuance of the Final Order.

197If the Parties do not submit the final form of the draft instruments, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [195] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, May 31, 2024, 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 instruments and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

198The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine 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.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

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.

ATTAHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3