Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000603
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Betovan Construction Limited
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of a twenty-nine-storey building
Reference Number: 18 270572 WET 02 OZ
Property Address: 1 Richview Road
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000603
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000603
OLT Case Name: Betovan Construction Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: January 10, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Betovan Construction Limited
Ira T. Kagan
Sarah Kagan (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Nathan Muscat
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND KURTIS SMITH ON January 10, 2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”), which was converted to a settlement hearing regarding an appeal filed by Betovan Construction Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, in respect of the failure by Council for the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on the Appellant’s application for Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to develop a twenty nine-storey building on the Appellant’s property municipally known as 1 Richview Road (“Subject Site”).
2The Appellant and the City reached a settlement on November 8, 2023, and requested that this hearing be converted to a settlement hearing for the Tribunal to approve.
3The Tribunal received written and oral evidence from Michael Goldberg, a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Appellant, whom the Tribunal qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning. The following findings of the Tribunal are based on Mr. Goldberg’s uncontroverted evidence (Exhibit 1), which the Tribunal accepts.
4The Subject Site is an irregularly shaped 4.9-acres parcel fronting Richview Road, Scarlett Road, and Eglinton Avenue West. It is currently occupied by two twenty-storey rental apartment buildings and abuts the planned Eglinton Crosstown West Extension. It is located in an area of the City intended for significant growth and near other existing and approved tall-buildings of a similar size and scale to that which is proposed.
5The ZBA will permit a new twenty-nine-storey apartment building on a vacant and underutilized portion of the Subject Site, containing a total of 306 rental units. The existing two twenty-storey rental apartment buildings will be maintained.
6The planning documents affecting these amendments include the following: s. 2 of the Planning Act; the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”); the City’s Official Plan (“OP”); The Tall Building Design Guidelines, May 2013; Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities; Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings. Several common themes, through the related policies and provisions in these documents, are implemented by the ZBA, and resulting development including:
Encouraging intensification in existing high-rise areas that are compatible with lower forms of development;
The efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure, the Subject Site being along a planned transit corridor;
Promoting mixed-use development and growth in Centres, Avenues, and Employment Areas;
The provision of a range of dwelling unit types, including family-sized units of two-bedrooms or larger; and,
Appropriate massing and design to fit in with the existing and planned context of the neighbourhood, resulting in no adverse planning impacts.
7A Participant’s written statement cited concerns with respect to the noise and dust of the redevelopment proposal. Mr. Goldberg opined that part of the site plan stage includes a construction management plan intended to minimize adverse impacts arising from construction. The Tribunal also notes that the Appellant committed in its settlement with the City to enhanced terms for the construction management plan. These include, but are not limited to, daily site sweeps, weekly pressure washing of the site and adjacent sidewalks, a 24/7 contact number for the site superintendent, and a website on which regular construction updates will be published.
8On the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg, the Tribunal finds that the requested ZBA has due regard for matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, conforms with the OP, has regard for the applicable guidelines, and represents good planning in the public interest.
INTERIM ORDER
9THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and draft Zoning By-Law Amendment appended hereto as Schedule 1 is approved in principle.
10The final approval of the Zoning By-Law Amendment shall be withheld by the Tribunal until:
a. Written confirmation from the Parties that the Zoning By-Law Amendment is in a final form acceptable to both Parties, within 180 days of the date of this Interim Order.
11The 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.
12If 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 10 above have been satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Wednesday, July 10, 2024, 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. 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.
13The 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, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.
“F. Lavoie”
F. LAVOIE
membeR
“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.