Rockport (MPE) Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 38847

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 24, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000017

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Rockport (MPE) Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit a twenty-seven-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: 20 211784 NNY 15 SA

Property Address: 717-733 Mount Pleasant Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000017

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000017

OLT Case Name: Rockport (MPE) Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Rockport (MPE) Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit a twenty-seven-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: A0237/23NY

Property Address: 717-733 Mount Pleasant Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000062

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000017

Heard: March 22, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Rockport (MPE) Inc. (“Appellant / Applicant”)

David Bronskill

City of Toronto (“City”)

Marc Hardiejowski

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON MARCH 22, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The address of the subject property is 717-733 Mount Pleasant Road (the “Property”). The Property is currently subject to a site-specific Zoning By-law which permits a previously approved twenty-three-storey residential development. The purpose of the present variance application is to permit the addition of four storeys to accommodate a newly proposed twenty-seven-storey building. The redesigned building also proposes to ‘square-off’ the curvature of the west façade of the approved building design, necessitating variances to permit reduced north, south, and west tower setbacks.

2The City’s Staff Report supported the requested variances, but the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) nevertheless refused the application (without detailed written reasons). The Applicant theorizes that the Committee refused the Application because the previously approved site-specific Zoning By-law was ordered by the Tribunal, and the Committee believed that such an order somehow usurped their power to approve the requested variances.

3Regardless, the matter is now before the Tribunal, and the Applicant now puts the contents of the Staff Report before the Tribunal in support of the Application, together with similarly supportive viva voce evidence from their planning expert, Michael Bissett. Counsel for the City confirms that it has no instructions to oppose the Application.

Status request

4Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal received a Party Status request from Leonard Jerome and Edith Jerome. At the outset of the hearing, their request was considered by the Tribunal.

5Mr. and Ms. Jerome own the property next door to the proposed development and operate a business out of that location. As such, the Tribunal finds that they clearly have a direct interest in the matter.

6While they have a direct interest in the matter, the Tribunal finds that they have not met the threshold necessary to be granted Party status and should be granted Participant status instead. The reasons include:

• They confirm that they are not familiar with the statutory test to grant a minor variance, so the Tribunal finds that they are not prepared to provide helpful evidence or submissions;
• They do not plan to call any witnesses, so the Tribunal finds that they are not prepared to contribute meaningfully to the proceedings from an evidentiary standpoint; and
• They confirmed that all of their concerns are articulated in a written statement, which has already been filed with the Tribunal, and so the Tribunal finds that nothing would be gained by granting them Party status instead of Participant status.

7Consequently, Leonard Jerome and Edith Jerome are not granted Party status but are granted Participant status instead (having been provided the option). The Tribunal confirms that it has reviewed and considered the Participants’ written statement in contemplation of the within decision.

REQUESTED VARIANCES

8The Applicant seeks relief from the provisions of site-specific By-law no. 1189-2022(OLT) (“ZBL”) to modify the proposed development of the Property. The applicable ZBL provisions are as follows, together with the requested variances:

1. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception 522, Regulation (K), By-law 569-2013: The permitted maximum gross floor area for all buildings and structures on the lot is 17,500 square metres;

• The proposed maximum gross floor area is 21,755 square metres.

2. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception 522, Regulation (K)(i), By-law 569-2013: The permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 17,200 square metres;

• The proposed maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 21,455 square metres.

3. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception CR 522, Regulation (H), By-law 569-2013, and Diagram 3, By-law 1189-2022(OLT): The permitted maximum height of a building or structure is the numerical value in metres following the letters "HT" as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law 1189-2022(OLT). In this case, the permitted maximum overall height is 75.0 metres;

• The proposed maximum height of a building or structure is the numerical value in metres following the letters "HT" as shown on the revised Diagram 3.

4. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception CR 522, Regulation (M), By-law 569-2013, and Diagram 3, By-law 1189-2022(OLT): The required minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law 1189-2022(OLT);

• The proposed minimum building setbacks are shown in metres on the revised Diagram 3.

5. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception 522, Regulation (N)(ii), By-law 569-2013: A maximum of 3 balconies are permitted on each storey of the east main walls of the building above a height of 22.5 m;

• The proposed maximum of 3 balconies are permitted on each storey of the east main walls of the building above a height of 23 m.

6. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception 522, Regulation (N)(iii), By-law 569-2013: Balconies shall not be within the areas labeled "Balcony restricted areas' at or above a height of 22.5 m on Diagram 4 of By-law 1189-2022(OLT);

• Proposed balconies shall not be within the areas labeled "Balcony restricted areas" at or above a height of 23m on Diagram 4 of By-law 1189-2022(OLT).

7. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception CR 522, Regulation (T)(i), By-law 569-2013: Residential parking spaces are to be provided at a minimum rate of 0.27 parking spaces per dwelling unit;

• Proposed residential parking will be provided at a minimum rate of 0.21 parking spaces per unit.

8. Chapter 900.11.10(522), Exception CR 522, Regulation (T)(ii), By-law 569-2013: Parking spaces for the shared use of residential visitors and non-residential uses are to be provided at a minimum rate of 0.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit;

• The proposed parking spaces for the shared use of residential visitors and non-residential uses will be provided at a minimum rate of 0.07 parking spaces per dwelling unit.

Policy context

9The policy context of the Property is as follows, as described in the City’s Staff Report:

• The subject lands are located on the east side of Mount Pleasant Road, between Eglinton Street East and Soudan Avenue.
• The site is within the Yonge-Eglinton Centre, as identified on Map 2 of the Official Plan and Map 21-2 of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan. Growth in the City will be directed to areas known as the Downtown, Centres and Avenues.
• The site is located within the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (“OPA 405”), specifically in the Station Area Core of the Mount Pleasant Midtown Transit Station Area in Map 21-3, the Mount Pleasant Station Character Area on Map 21-2, and Mixed-Use Areas “B” on Map 21-4.
• In the Mount Pleasant Station Character Area, an anticipated height range of 20 to 35 storeys is envisioned.
• The property is within the Commercial Residential Zone “CR” 3.0 (c2.0; r2.5) SS2 (x522) of Zoning By-law no. 569-2013, as modified by site-specific by-law no. 1189-2022(OLT).

Analysis

10Mr. Bissett took the Tribunal through the four legislated elements to be satisfied to authorize a minor variance, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”),. He confirmed that he is of the opinion that all four elements are satisfied. He further emphasized that the variances currently being sought apply to the in-effect site-specific Zoning By-law, which already allows a similar twenty-three-storey building. In that context, he opined, the test is easily satisfied given the fact that they are merely seeking to change the originally contemplated development plans by adding four-storeys and squaring off the curvature nature of the west façade. Such changes, he went on to opine, fall squarely within, and are even encouraged by, the stated vision, goals, and objectives of the existing policy context of the site, as described above.

11Thus, Mr. Bissett summarily opined, the subject variances: (1) maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan; (2) maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law; (3) are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and (4) are minor in nature.

12Carrying on, Mr. Bissett further opined that the requested variances have regard for the provincial interests expressed in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and otherwise constitute good planning in the public interest.

13Based on the above evidence, and having received no contrary evidence, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Bissett, together with the contents of the Staff Report, and comes to the same conclusions. The Tribunal therefore finds that the variances should be authorized.

14Regarding Conditions of authorization, the parties are in agreement regarding such conditions, in the event that the requested variances are authorized. Mr. Bissett opined that these Conditions are reasonable and appropriate. Again, having received no contrary evidence, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Bissett’s evidence, together with the joint recommendations of the parties, and imposes the stated conditions.

ORDER

15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variances to By-law no. 1189-2022(OLT) of the City of Toronto are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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