Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 18, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004660
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Berkeley Carlyle (Junction) Inc.
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment
Description: To permit construction of two residential buildings with 535 units and a total GFA of 52,980 square metres
Property Address: 159,161-181 Mulock Ave & 6 Lloyd Ave
Municipality/UT: Toronto
Municipal File No.: 19 239452 WET 05 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004660
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004660
OLT Case Name: Berkeley Carlyle (Junction) Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: April 22, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Berkeley Carlyle (Junction) Inc. | Daniel Artenosi Michael Cara |
| City of Toronto | Gabe Szobel |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS ON April 22, 2024 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal arises following a non-decision by the City of Toronto (“City”) within the statutory timeframe regarding a revised application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the re-development of lands known municipally as 159, 161-181 Mulock Avenue and 6 Lloyd Avenue (“Subject Property”), to construct two residential buildings with heights of 44 and 31 storeys (“North and South Towers”), and one eight-storey office building (“Office Building”).
2The application by Berkeley Carlyle (Junction) Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks two amendments, one to the City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and one to City Zoning By-law No. 438-86
3The jointly proposed settlement proposal supports the development comprising of the North and South Towers and associated podium to include an overall gross floor area (“GFA”) of approximately 70,500 square metres (“sq m”) of residential floor area (inclusive of above-grade parking), and a minimum of 1,000 sq m of accessory retail. The Office Building will have a maximum GFA of 8,000 sq m and include a minimum area of 500 sq m for a private daycare. The unit mix for the North and South Towers and associated podium will include a minimum of 15 percent two-bedroom units and 10 percent three-bedroom units. Indoor amenity space will be a minimum of 2 sq m per unit and 1.9 sq m per unit for outdoor amenity space. Bicycle parking rates for the Subject Property shall be 0.9 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 0.1 short-term bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The development shall include one Type-G, one Type-B, and three Type-C loading spaces.
4Further modifications from the revised application dated May 2023 are as follows:
a. North Tower: the height of the North Tower has been reduced from 44 to 35 storeys; reconfiguration of the footprint to allow for a minimum separation distance of 25 metres (“m”) between the two towers; and the tower floorplate would have a maximum gross construction area of 750 sq m;
b. South Tower: the height of the South Tower has been reduced from 31 to 28 storeys; minimum distance separation of 15 m has been provided between the South Tower and the Office Building; the four-storey portion of the podium situated beneath the South Tower has a minimum setback of 5 m from the new public park at the southwest corner of the Subject Property;
c. Office Building: a minimum setback of 5 m has been provided from the four-storey podium portion of the Office Building to the new public park; will include a minimum of non-residential GFA equal to 4,000 sq m; and
d. Parkland Dedication: the size of the new Public Park has increased from 842 sq m to 880 sq m.
5Disposition of the matter has come before the Tribunal as a Settlement Hearing. The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed and considered the following materials and submissions:
i. The uncontested opinion evidence of Michael Bissett, a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, contained in his comprehensive affidavit sworn April 21, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 1);
ii. The Applicant’s Architectural Plans dated March 20, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 2);
iii. The draft Zoning By-law Amendment (marked as Exhibit 3);
iv. The Applicant’s Visual Evidence (marked as Exhibit 5);
v. The draft Order provided on consent of the Parties (marked as Exhibit 4); and
vi. The Parties’ oral submissions in support of the settlement.
Decision
6The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn affidavit evidence of Mr. Bissett reflects revisions to the application before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties.
7The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. Bissett 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 section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conforms to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, and the City of Toronto Official Plan, and otherwise reflect principles of good land use planning.
INTERIM ORDER
8THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction and receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in subparagraph 2 below and the Tribunal approves, in principle, the Zoning By-law set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order and the form of development set out in the Architectural Plans in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order and Decision.
The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the Parties that the following matters have been resolved:
a. That the Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-Law Amendment submitted in final form, confirmed to be satisfactory in final form and content by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;
b. The Applicant has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and such Report shall determine the stormwater run-off, sanitary flow and water supply demand resulting from the development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development and/or any upgrades that may be required;
c. The Applicant has submitted a revised Hydrological Review Report, Servicing Report Groundwater Summary Form and Hydrological Review Summary Form to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
d. The Applicant has provided a revised Pedestrian Wind Study, such report to be reviewed with recommendations implemented as part of the Zoning By-law and/or secured in a development agreement to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
e. The Applicant has submitted revised drawings illustrating the conveyance of lands required by the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
f. The Applicant has submitted revised Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study and a Rail Safety Study, to be peer reviewed by consultants retained by the City at the Applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
g. The Applicant has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study including all requested revisions to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
h. If required by Metrolinx, the Applicant shall, at the Applicant's own expense, initiate the Metrolinx Deviation Process with Metrolinx and Metrolinx's Technical Advisor AECOM, and if required by Metrolinx, the Applicant shall submit information and made revisions requested in correspondence, dated July 17, 2023, from Metrolinx, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the Manager, Technical Review, Metrolinx;
i. The Applicant makes satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and enters into the appropriate agreement with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development, according to the Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and Traffic Impact Study accepted by the General Manager, Transportation Services;
j. The Applicant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry noted in correspondence, dated July 6, 2023, including the need for an updated Arborist Report and Landscape Plan, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation; and
k. The Applicant has made revisions to meet the Toronto Green Standard requirements to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.
The 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.
If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in subparagraph [8]2.a. above by Wednesday, February 19, 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 of satisfied prerequisites identified in subparagraphs [8]2.b. – k., and submission of the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment for the Tribunal’s approval and the issuance of its Final Order.
The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine additional timelines and deadline for the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites, the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the issuance of the Final Order
“J. Innis”
J. INNIS
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