Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 23, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000244
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 179-183 King Developments Inc. and 185 King Developments Inc.
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment
Description: To permit 33-storey mixed-use building with 190 residential units and 140 commercial hotel units
Reference Number: 22 189358 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 179 – 185 King Street E
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000244
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000244
OLT Case Name: 179-183 King Developments Inc. and 185 King Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 179-183 King Developments Inc. and 185 King Developments Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit 33-storey mixed-use building with 190 residential units and 140 commercial hotel units
Reference Number: 22 189357 STE 13 SA
Property Address: 179 – 185 King Street E
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000245
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000244
Heard: May 1, 2024 by video hearing (“VH”)
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Agent* |
|---|---|
| 179-183 King Developments Inc. and 185 King Developments Inc. (“Applicant”) | Eileen Costello |
| City of Toronto | Mathew Longo |
| St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association | Suzanne Kavanagh* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS and N. ALLAM AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
Preliminary matters
1At the outset of the Hearing, the Tribunal granted full Party status to the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (“SLNA”).
2Additionally, Paul Vrooman was granted Participant status (on consent of the Parties) upon attending the present Hearing and explaining that he had technical difficulties at the last Case Management Conference, which prevented him from seeking such status at that time.
settlement
3Disposition of this matter has come before the Tribunal as a settlement motion.
4The appeal arises following a non-decision by the City regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application. The purpose of the originally proposed ZBA was to permit a 33-storey mixed-use building with 190 residential units and 140 commercial hotel units.
5A number of changes to the proposal have taken place over time, eventually leading to the current proposal which is now subject to the present settlement. The Tribunal understands that the proposal was modified over time for a number of reasons, and most recently to address concerns expressed by the City of Toronto (“City”), as well as the SLNA.
6The current plan features a mixed-use 46-storey tower, with a two-storey podium consisting of 434 square metres of at-grade retail area. The podium is also proposed to retain the existing heritage features along King Street East and George Street. Of the total proposed 437 residential units, 15% are 2-bedroom units, 10% are three-bedroom units, and 15% of the smaller units are capable of being converted to two- or three-bedroom units. Hotel units are no longer part of the plans.
7Key elements of the current plan which enabled settlement include the retention and improved prominence of the aforementioned heritage elements, as well as saving a number of trees along King Street East. Regarding preservation of the heritage features, the revised plans include a more substantial stepback of the tower and 'reveal’ that is incorporated into the base of the tower, as it emerges from behind the heritage buildings’ facades, to better emphasize the heritage elements, completely retaining and highlighting the heritage rooflines, chimneys and window dormers.
8To enable these changes, the Parties explained that a narrower tower is now planned, which also happens to reduce the width of shadow impacts (thus reducing the length of time the tower’s shadow is cast on any particular location). However, the Parties further explained, the narrower tower floorplate necessitated an increase in height to maintain a sufficient number of residential units to support policies aimed at providing an adequate supply, mix and range of housing options.
9The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed and considered the following materials and submissions:
i. The uncontested opinion evidence of Michael S. Goldberg, a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, contained in his comprehensive affidavit sworn April 25, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 1);
ii. Participant Statements filed with the Tribunal in the names of:
Hugh and Joanne Dow, dated August 21, 2023;
Sheila and Rod Monette, dated April 9, 2024;
David Brinton, dated April 11, 2024;
James Mclandress, dated April 10, 2024;
John Ambrose, dated April 10, 2024;
Josie Visentini, dated April 10, 2024;
Kathryn Froh, dated April 10, 2024;
Paul Vrooman, dated April 10, 2024; and
Shirin Fayz, dated April 11, 2024;
iii. The Parties’ oral submissions in support of the settlement; and
iv. Draft Order jointly submitted to give effect to the relief sought.
analysis
10The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn affidavit evidence of Mr. Goldberg reflects revisions to the application before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties.
11The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. Goldberg as presented in his affidavit and similarly finds that the subject application, as revised, has regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), and, in accordance with s. 3(5) of the Act, it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), and conforms to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”).
12The Tribunal also finds that, in accordance with s. 24(1) of the Act, the settlement proposal conforms with the City of Toronto Official Plan (“City OP”). More particularly, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Goldberg’s evidence insofar as the proposed development conforms with the following policy subject-matters of the City OP, as amended:
Growth Management Policies;
Regeneration Areas;
Public Realm and Built Form Policies;
Housing Policies; and
Heritage Resource Policies.
13The Tribunal further accepts Mr. Goldberg’s evidence insofar as the proposed development conforms with the following applicable in-effect City Official Plan Amendments (OPAs) and secondary plans:
OPA 352: Downtown Tall Buildings Setback Site and Area Specific Policy 517;
OPA 406: The Downtown Plan;
King-Parliament Secondary Plan;
OPA 525: The New King-Parliament Secondary Plan;
OPA 524: Downtown Plan Protected Major Transit Station Areas (“PMTSAs”); and
OPA 570: Other PMTSAs.
14Lastly, as it relates to the City’s planning guidelines, the Tribunal further accepts Mr. Goldberg’s evidence insofar as the proposed development sufficiently responds to the following:
King-Parliament Urban Design Guidelines;
Tall Building Design Guidelines, May 2013;
Growing up: Planning for New Children in New Vertical Communities; and
Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings.
15In addition to providing his expert opinion with respect to each the above noted policy considerations, Mr. Goldberg also provided the Tribunal with his opinions related to the concerns expressed by the aforementioned Participants. He specifically commented on the following concerns:
Heritage character;
Height and shadow impact on surrounding areas and St. James Park;
Traffic impact;
There are not enough larger apartment units with unit distribution;
There are not enough community services (schools, parks, medical services etc.) for the residents of the new development; and
Capacity of existing infrastructure.
16Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposed development adequately addresses each of the above noted concern, the plans sufficiently mitigate any negative impacts, and/or the City services and infrastructure mentioned above can adequately accommodate the proposed building. Also noteworthy, Mr. Goldberg confirmed that the proposed project minimizes traffic impact and generation by facilitating only deliveries and drop-off/pickup functions.
17The Tribunal accepts Mr. Goldberg’s opinion as it relates to the expressed concerns of the Participants, and similarly finds that their concerns have been adequately addressed through the plans.
Summary and conclusion
18The Tribunal finds that the proposal seeks to redevelop an otherwise underutilized site. The Tribunal further finds that the design of the proposed 46-storey tower achieves appropriate architecture, massing, and interface with the heritage resources on site. Additionally, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that the subject site can accommodate the height, density, and site organization with acceptable planning impacts.
19The Tribunal recognizes that the provincial policies contained in the PPS and the Growth Plan actively promote and encourage compact urban form, intensification, optimization of the existing land base and infrastructure, and development that is transit-supportive and contributes to a complete community. In this regard, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development includes appropriate density and land use elements called for and promoted by the PPS and the Growth Plan. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the present settlement proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan.
20From a local planning perspective, the Tribunal finds that the development conforms with the City OP, and in this regard, it implements and satisfies the applicable Mixed Use Areas, Housing, Public Realm, Built Form, and Heritage provisions and policies of the City OP. The Tribunal further finds that the proposal generally satisfies the visions for this site as expressed in the applicable City guidelines, and thus constitutes an appropriate development for the subject location, which will be compatible within the existing and planned context of the site.
21The Tribunal further recognizes that the subject site is located within convenient walking distance of three subway stations and various surface transit routes. As a result, the proposal strongly supports transit-oriented polices which call for greater housing density.
22In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the proposal is premised on sound and reasonable planning analysis, represents good planning, and is in the public interest. The Tribunal therefore approves the subject ZBA application, as revised, in accordance with the Parties’ settlement, pursuant to the terms of the Order below.
23Regarding conditions of approval, the Tribunal accepts and orders the jointly proposed conditions of the Parties, as identified in the Order below.
interim order
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [25] below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle. For clarity, the purpose of said Zoning By-law Amendment is to facilitate the proposed development as generally depicted on the plans prepared by Arcadis Inc., dated December 19, 2023, attached as Attachment 2.
25The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order, contingent upon confirmation of the following pre-requisite matters:
a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;
b. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that the Applicant has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services has determined that holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment;
c. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor, should it be determined that upgrades to municipal infrastructure are required through the review of updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, that the owner has made satisfactory arrangements with the City and has entered into the appropriate agreement(s) for the design and construction of such works, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
d. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that the Applicant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review;
e. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that the Applicant has provided a detailed Conservation Plan prepared by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment for 175-185 King Street East, prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 10, 2022, revised August 10, 2023, with an addendum dated January 16, 2024, and details all future conservation efforts as part of this application, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;
f. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that the Applicant has entered into and registered on title to the property a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 175-185 King Street East substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings dated January 10, 2024; and the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated August 10, 2022, revised August 10, 2023, with an addendum dated January 16, 2024, subject to and in accordance with the Conservation Plan required in paragraph 25e above, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and
g. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that the owner has submitted an application and gained approval in writing under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the proposed alterations to the heritage properties at 175-185 King Street East.
26The Panel Members 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.
27If the Parties do not submit the final drafts 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 [25] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, within 120 days after the date of issuance of this Order, 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 Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
28The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline 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.
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS
MEMBER
“N. Allam”
N. ALLAM
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2