Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 29, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000225
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Starbank Developments 36 Corp.
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application – failure to make a decision
Description: To permit an 11-storey residential building
Reference Number: 21 240661 ESC 21 OZ
Property Address: 36-40 Ellesmere Road
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000225
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000225
OLT Case Name: Starbank Developments 36 Corp. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: January 9, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Starbank Developments 36 Corp. | M. Flynn-Guglietti |
| City of Toronto | D. Elmadany |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE ON JANUARY 9, 2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act for the City of Toronto’s (the "City") failure to make a decision regarding an application for an approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment made by Starbank Developments 36 Corp. (the "Applicant") in reference to the property municipally known as 36-40 Ellesmere Road, in the City (the "subject site").
Planning Evidence
2Michael Goldberg was called before the Tribunal to give expert opinion evidence in land-use planning on the consent of both Parties. After a review of his acknowledgment of expert duties, Mr. Goldberg was so qualified by the Tribunal.
3Mr. Goldberg gave expert opinion on the proposal to redevelop an underutilized site with a 12-storey, 187-dwelling unit, mixed-use building. The built-form design is aimed at achieving the most suitable architecture, massing, and interface within the context of the subject site. The proposal has demonstrated that the subject site can accommodate the proposed height, density, and site organization appropriately.
4Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposed redevelopment complies with the Healthy Neighbourhoods, Mixed-Use Areas, Housing, Public Realm and Built Form provisions and policies of the City's Official Plan (“OP”). The proposed redevelopment aligns with the visions for a subject site like this, as expressed in the relevant City guidelines. Therefore, the proposed redevelopment is suitable for this location and will blend harmoniously with the current and planned context of the subject site.
5From a housing options perspective, Mr. Goldberg stated that the mix in range of bedroom type dwelling units exceeds the City's guidelines with the following mix being offered:
6Mr. Goldberg has acknowledged that the Provincial planning frame work, provided in the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”) encourage compact urban form, intensification, optimization of existing land and infrastructure, transit-supportive development, and contribute to a complete community. It is his opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the subject site aligns with the policy directions expressed in these two Provincial policy documents. Therefore, it is consistent with the PPS and conforms to, rather than conflicts with, the GP.
7In conclusion, it was Mr. Goldberg's recommendation to the Tribunal that the Final Order be withheld until such time that the City has advised the Tribunal that the Applicant has met the conditions as set out in the resolution passed by City Council.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided by Mr. Goldberg. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to the range of housing options, and in particular, with the increase in family size bedroom dwelling units as desired by the City.
9The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the GP, and as maintained by the OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.
10The Final Order will not be issued until the City informs the Tribunal that all of the outstanding conditions have been met. The Applicant has until Friday, June 28, 2024, to fulfill these conditions. If any issues arise, the Tribunal can be contacted for assistance.
INTERIM ORDER
11THE TRIBUNAL’S INTERIM ORDERS are as follows:
The appeal by Starbank Developments 36 Corp. for the Zoning By-law Amendment are allowed, in part, on an interim basis and the Tribunal approves in principle the revised proposal for the lands municipally known as 36-40 Ellesmere Road, in the City of Toronto, the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 1, being Exhibit 1 section E to this hearing, to be generally in accordance with the plans and drawings in Attachment 2, being Exhibit 1 section D to this hearing.
The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon the confirmation from the City Solicitor that the following pre-conditions have been satisfied:
a. the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final content and form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor; and,
b. the Starbank Developments 36 Corp. has at its sole cost and expense:
i. submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including Foundation Drainage Report or addendums ("Engineering Reports"), to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;
ii. secured the design and provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports, accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water;
iii. ensured the implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-laws or any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-laws, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any new or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure as may be required; and,
iv. submitted a revised Arborist Report or addendum and Tree Protection Plan acceptable and satisfactory to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation.
If 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 2 above, have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, June 28, 2024, the Parties 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 request for issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.
The 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 instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order.
The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of any matter or matters that should arise in connection with the implementation of the conditions set out herein.
The Member remains seized.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
VICE-CHAIR
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