Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 10, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004574
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2806275 Ontario Inc., 2478443 Ontario Inc., and 2469882 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: Permit a 35-storey mixed-use building with 472 residential units’ residential units of which 53 are rental replacement units and at-grade commercial retail
Reference Number: 21 235591 NNY 08 0Z
Property Address: 836 and 838 Roselawn Avenue and 131 Lyon Court
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004574
OLT Case Name: 2806275 Ontario Inc.,2478443 Ontario Inc., and 2469882 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: March 18, 2024 In Writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2806275 Ontario Inc., 2478443 Ontario Inc., and 2469882 Ontario Inc.
Joe Hoffman
City of Toronto
Amanda Hill Jason Davidson
decision by david brown and interim order of the tribunaL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns an appeal filed by 2806275 Ontario Inc., 2478443 Ontario Inc., and 2469882 Ontario Inc. (together the “Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) within the timeframe prescribed in the Act.
2The lands that are the subject of the Appeal are known municipally as 836 and 838 Roselawn Avenue and 131 Lyon Court (“Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands are the assembly of three properties with a combined lot frontage on Roselawn Avenue of 51.82 metres (“m”) and 97.53 m along Lyon Court and a total lot area of 3,222 square metres (“m2”). The Subject Lands are currently occupied by two four-storey, multiple-unit residential buildings and a two-storey building containing a retail use at grade and a residential unit on the second floor. The immediate context of the property is comprised of predominantly slab-style apartment buildings of varying heights and configurations.
3The Subject Lands are within 800 m of the Cedarvale Station on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT and the Glencairn Subway Station.
4The ZBA will give effect to the Appellant’s proposal to redevelop the Subject Lands with a mixed-use, tall building. The initial application proposed a 35-storey building with a 28-storey tower atop a seven-storey base providing 472 residential units and 397.5 m2 of floor space for commercial uses.
5The ZBA, together with an Application for Site Plan Approval (“SPA”), a Draft Plan of Condominium, and Rental Housing Demolition applications, were submitted to the City in November 2021. The ZBA was deemed complete on February 28, 2022. The ZBA was appealed to the Tribunal on September 15, 2022, by the Appellant for the failure of the City to make a decision on the ZBA within the applicable timeframes prescribed in the Act. A Community Consultation Meeting was held on March 28, 2023. A revised application was filed on November 10, 2023, after continuing discussions with City staff.
6Further discussions with the City resulted in the Appellant submitting a settlement offer to the City on November 29, 2023 (the “Settlement Proposal”). The Settlement Proposal included a reduction in the height of the proposed building to 33-storeys with two storeys of wrapped mechanical for a total height of 110.7 m with a seven-storey podium base. Vehicle access has been consolidated to a single point of access off Lyon Court. The ground floor will provide a single lobby area at the corner of Lyon Court and Roselawn Avenue and will include 95 m2 of commercial uses. The building proposes 450 residential units, including 53 replacement rental units, and a maximum tower floor plate of 800 m2 will be provided. The podium will include a 1.5 m step-back at the seventh floor from the sixth floor. The amenity area will be provided on the eighth floor to create access to the outdoor amenity area on the roof of the podium. There are 137 vehicle parking spaces and 496 bicycle parking spaces proposed. The Settlement Proposal includes 1,800 m2 of amenity space with half being provided indoors and half being outdoors.
7The Settlement Proposal also set out a number of conditions to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a final approval from the Tribunal. The City Council endorsed the Settlement Proposal at its meeting on December 15, 2023.
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
8The Tribunal received an Affidavit from Andrew Ferancik, a Registered Professional Planner, in support of the Settlement Proposal and Draft Zoning By-law (“Draft ZB”) and recommending approval of the ZBA as set out in the terms of the Settlement Proposal. The Affidavit of Mr. Ferancik was filed as Exhibit 1.
9Mr. Ferancik proffered that the Settlement Proposed has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and in particular, the intense and mixed-use built form proposed optimizes the use of public transit and active transportation networks, implements a range of housing, encourages a sense of place within a populated and highly walkable area of the City, is an appropriate location for the development of a new tall building, and will contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions through a reduced parking supply, making nearby transit and active transportation facilities the preferred mode of travel.
10In consideration of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), Mr. Ferancik opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it represents a compact form of development that will introduce a variety of housing units to an underutilized site that is well-served by infrastructure, amenities, and facilities. The development envisioned by the Settlement Proposal will be designed to a high standard of quality and provide generous setbacks and transitions to the public realm and surrounding uses. The Settlement Proposal supports the provincial goals of reducing automobile use, making efficient use of infrastructure, improving public health, and reducing urban sprawl.
11Mr. Ferancik opined that the Settlement Proposal will provide a desirable and appropriate form of intensification for both residential and non-residential uses in proximity to frequent and higher-order transit. The Settlement Proposal will provide a transit-supportive, compact-built form that is contextually appropriate. Mr. Ferancik proffered that the Settlement Proposal supports the key principles of the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”), specifically, the Settlement Proposal comprises intensified, transit-supportive, mixed-use development with a reduced on-site parking supply at a location that has access to excellent transit options, including the subway system, and the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The Settlement Proposal contributes to the creation of a pedestrian-friendly streetscape and contributes to the diversification of housing options and retail space. Mr. Ferancik concluded that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the Growth Plan.
12The Subject Lands are located within the Apartment Neighbourhoods of the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) Land Use Plan, which Mr. Ferancik proffered are areas generally appropriate for intense and transit-focused forms of development, especially given the excellent public transit and active transportation modes available to the Subject Lands.
13Mr. Ferancik proffered that the Settlement Proposal incorporates a series of setbacks, step-backs, and other relevant massing and design features, resulting in a built form that is responsive to the context of the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation and provides for a gradual transition of scale and density to the Neighbourhoods designated properties in the OP to the south and west of the Subject Lands. All parking, loading, and servicing areas are either proposed below grade, or shielded from the surrounding public realm through an efficient site layout and landscaping treatments.
14The podium is designed to address the prominence of the Subject Lands’ corner location with primary entrances to retail and residential lobbies fronting the two public street frontages, and the tower rising above the podium is appropriately setback to the adjacent developments to the east. The podium respects and reinforces the streetwall height established by the existing nine-storey residential building located immediately east of the Subject Lands. The tower portion of the building adequately limits net new shadows cast onto the public realm, maintains an appropriate level of sky views within its high-density context, and maintains appropriate pedestrian level wind conditions. Further, the tower is oriented in a parallel fashion to both public street frontages consistent with the tower placements within the immediate area.
15The Settlement Proposal meets the development criteria for Apartment Neighbourhoods and Mr. Ferancik opined that Settlement Proposal represents an opportunity to improve upon the existing conditions through improved streetscaping, new amenities, improved housing stock, and greater density that will support the nearby transit infrastructure and non-residential uses in the community. Further, the Settlement Proposal responds to the housing policies of the OP by providing a market-based range of housing types and unit sizes on the Subject Lands representing a more efficient use of available land, transit, and infrastructure to meet the current and future needs of residents.
16Mr. Ferancik concluded opining that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the OP.
17Mr. Ferancik reviewed the Tall Buildings Design Guidelines (“TBDG”), Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines (“GUP”), and Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings (“PFDG”) and opined that the Settlement Proposal has adequate regard for the implementation of the relevant City design guidelines.
18Mr. Ferancik concluded by opining that the Draft ZB, proposed to implement the Settlement Proposal, is appropriate and constitutes good planning.
19Mr. Ferancik recommended that the Tribunal allow the Appeal, in principle, and withhold issuance of the Final Order, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions described within the Settlement Proposal, as set out in his Affidavit.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
20The Tribunal, having considered the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of Mr. Ferancik, accepts the opinions proffered by Mr. Ferancik and finds as follows.
21The Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBA to permit the redevelopment of the Subject Lands as described in the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate and desirable form of intensification.
22The Settlement Proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as it will support the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, will provide a range of housing, is an appropriate location for growth, promotes development that is designed to support public transit and pedestrians, will be sustainable, and is well designed.
23The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal supports provincial and municipal policy directions that support intensification and infill development on underutilized sites within the built-up urban area, particularly in locations that are well served by municipal infrastructure, including public transit.
24The Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it proposes compact intensification within a settlement area where public transit and municipal infrastructure are well-developed and will provide a variety of new housing options.
25The Settlement Proposal conforms to the Growth Plan by introducing an appropriate form of intensification within the delineated built-up area, close to higher-order transit, increasing the supply and mix of housing options in an area that is well served by established public services, facilities, and infrastructure, including developed and emerging higher-order transit.
26The Tribunal accepts the conclusions of Mr. Ferancik and finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the City OP policies relating to built form and development within the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation by providing for a compact, street-oriented development that is compatible with existing apartment buildings and appropriately transitions to lower-scale uses. The Tribunal further finds that the Settlement Proposal appropriately addresses and has regard for the TBDG, the GUP, and the PFDG.
27The Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBA required to facilitate the development of the Subject Lands in accordance with the Settlement Plans represents good planning and is in the public interest.
28The Tribunal allows the Appeal in part and approves the ZBA in principle, in accordance with the Settlement Proposal and the Draft ZB included in Tribunal Exhibit 1. The Tribunal withholds issuance of its Final Order, subject to the City providing confirmation that the conditions requested have been satisfied and the Tribunal has been provided with the final form of the Draft ZB for approval.
INTERIM ORDER
29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals be allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [30] below and the Zoning By-Law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.
30The Tribunal withholds the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon the receipt and approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment in its final form and confirmation from the Solicitor for the City of Toronto of the following pre-requisite matters:
a) The final form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted to the Tribunal for approval is satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
b) The Owner has submitted architectural plans reflecting the proposal as approved in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
c) The Owner has submitted a revised pedestrian level wind study, including the identification of any required mitigation measures to be secured in the Zoning By-law amendment and through the site plan control process, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
d) City Council has approved the Rental Housing Demolition Application (Application 21 235748 NNY 08 RH) under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and, should City Council authorize the demolition, that the Applicant has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, securing the replacement of the existing rental dwelling units, including unit mix, size, and rents, tenant assistance to mitigate hardship, and other rental-related matters, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
e) The Owner has submitted an updated complete Toronto Green Standards Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
f) The Owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services;
g) The Owner has, at its sole cost and expense, facilitated the City undertaking a peer review of the submitted Noise and Vibration Assessment, and secured any recommended mitigation measures in the amending by-law, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
h) The Owner has satisfactorily addressed the matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated January 24, 2022, and any outstanding issues arising from the ongoing technical review (including provision of acceptable reports and studies), as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and
i) The Owner has provided financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the acceptable Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and General Manager, Toronto Water, where it has been determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development. In requiring any off-site municipal infrastructure upgrades, the owner is to make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services for Work on the City's Right-of-Way.
32The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
33If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [30] above have been satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Thursday, October 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 Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
34The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadlines for the submission of the final form of the instrument(s), the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1