Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 02, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004296

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

Applicant and Appellant: 415 Broadview GP Inc Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit 8-storey tower on top of an existing church building Reference Number: 21 251348 STE 14 OZ Property Address: 415 Broadview Avenue Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004296 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004296 OLT Case Name: 415 Broadview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 415 Broadview GP Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit 8-storey tower on top of an existing church building Reference Number: 21 251348 STE 14 OZ Property Address: 415 Broadview Avenue Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004297 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004296

Heard: June 10, 2024 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
415 Broadview GP Inc.	Rodney Gill David Bronskill
City of Toronto	Matthew Longo
Neighbourhood Coalition of Lower Riverdale	Tom Grant* Mark Sheeley*

DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal is a Settlement Hearing regarding the property municipally known as 415 Broadview Avenue (“Subject Property”), in the City of Toronto (“City”). 415 Broadview GP Inc. (“Applicant”) sought an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“Applications”) to construct a 10-storey mixed-use building on the Subject Property, and more specifically, to add eight (8) storeys to the church building that is currently on the Subject Property. The Applications were appealed due to the failure of the City Council to make a decision within the statutory timelines prescribed in the Planning Act (“Act”).

2Through ongoing communication between the Parties, the Applicant made a number of adjustments to the Original Proposal, as shown below:

3To support the Settlement Proposal the Tribunal, based on the respective Curriculum Vitae and executed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty forms, qualified Courtney Heron-Monk and Michael McClelland to provide written opinion evidence in land use planning/urban design and heritage architecture/cultural heritage planning, respectively.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4Ms. Heron-Monk and Mr. McClelland provided the Tribunal with fulsome witness statements, which were marked as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, respectively.

5Ms. Heron-Monk expressed the opinion that the Settlement Proposal has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), and the City’s Official Plan (“COP”). In addition, Ms. Heron-Monk reviewed the conditions of approval, and is of the opinion that they are appropriate and will ensure the orderly development of the Subject Property.

6Ms. Heron-Monk communicated that:

The proposal represents an appropriate level of intensification at a suitable location and in an appropriate built form based on the existing and planned context of the site. The proposed building location, height and massing would be appropriate for the site and compatible with its surroundings, would create new housing opportunities while allowing the existing congregation to remain, and would contribute to an expanded and enhanced public realm at the intersection.

7Likewise, through a heritage lens, Mr. McClelland wrote that:

the Settlement Proposal represents good cultural heritage planning. The Settlement Proposal incorporates a conservation approach that is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines, and in my opinion, represents a high-quality contemporary architectural response to the built heritage resource on the Subject Site. It constitutes a Rehabilitation project that sensitively adapts the existing church to make possible its continued use by the Congregation.

He goes on by stating that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the heritage polices in the PPS, and conforms to the COP heritage policies.

8Moreover, Mr. McClelland is of the opinion that the alterations to the church and the residential addition are designed in such a way that they mitigate visual and physical impacts on the church which retains the integrity of the cultural heritage value and attributes.

9The Tribunal looks to the above-mentioned planning documents relating to the Settlement Proposal, which have several common elections that are implemented, including:

a. Protects, manages, and uses a built heritage resource in a manner that ensures cultural heritage value is retained and the ongoing use of the church is maintained;

b. Supports residential intensification and infill development within the built-up area;

c. Provides an appropriate and desirable urban design, contributing to the neighbourhood character through built form transitions and setbacks; and

d. Provides a range of housing unit options.

10The Tribunal accepts the uncontested planning evidence and opinions of Ms. Heron-Monk and Mr. McClelland and is satisfied that the revised Applications represent good planning, have regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, the COP, and constitute an appropriate site-specific amendment to the City’s Zoning By-law. Moreover, the Settlement Proposal has appropriate regard for the applicable heritage guidelines and policies.

INTERIM ORDER

11THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 12 below and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment generally in accordance with the plans set out in Schedule C and in the form set out in the attached Schedule A, and the draft Official Plan Amendment, attached as Schedule B are hereby approved in principle.

12The Final Order is withheld pending written confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment in a finalized form confirmed to be satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

b. The Tribunal is advised that the Applicant has provided updated reports confirming adequate 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 draft Zoning By-law Amendment;

c. The Tribunal is advised that the Applicant has resolved transportation-related matters including streetscape and curb extension provisions, site loading and access, as well as matters related to functional servicing and stormwater management, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

d. In the event that the updated reports referred to above identify required upgrades to servicing or functional items above, the Tribunal is advised that the Applicant has entered into agreement(s) for the construction of any such improvements to such services, as required, at no cost to the City and to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

e. The Tribunal is advised that the Applicant has submitted a Revised Heritage Impact Assessment that includes a conservation strategy for the on-site significant heritage resource, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning;

f. The Tribunal is advised that the Applicant has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 415 Broadview Avenue, substantially in accordance with plans and drawings plans attached as Schedule C, subject to and in accordance with the approved Plan required in paragraph [12]g. below, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

g. The Tribunal is advised 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 the Lands, prepared by ERA Architects dated January 17, 2024, and details all future conservation efforts as part of this Application, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

h. The Tribunal is advised that the Applicant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, as they relate to the aforementioned Applications, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Tree Protection and Plan Review;

i. The Tribunal is advised that the Applicant has resolved all outstanding matters identified in the Memorandum prepared by Engineering and Construction Services, dated June 30, 2022; and

j. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has obtained a permit from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for the removal and relocation of the chimney swift habitat on site, or has made other acceptable arrangements to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

13The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

14If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 12 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Friday, January 31, 2025 the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

15The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional time lines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

16The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that there are difficulties in satisfying the above conditions for the issuance of the Tribunal's Final Order in respect of the above mentioned Appeals.

“Kurtis Smith”

Kurtis Smith

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.