Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 30, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004214

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

Applicant and Appellant: 906 Yonge Street Developments Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit two towers of 33 Storeys and 19 storeys with a 2-storey covered base
Reference Number: 21 233780 STE 11 OZ
Property Address: 906 Yonge Street and 25 McMurrich Street
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004214
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004214
OLT Case Name: 906 Yonge Street Developments Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Appellant: 906 Yonge Street Developments Ltd.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit two towers of 33 Storeys and 19 storeys with a 2-storey covered base
Reference Number: 21 233790 STE 11 SA
Property Address: 906 Yonge Street and 25 McMurrich Street
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004215
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004214
OLT Case Name: 906 Yonge Street Developments Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: October 30, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
906 Yonge Street Developments Ltd.	Eileen Costello
City of Toronto	Matthew Longo
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 698	Raj Kehar
ABC Residents Association	Christina Kapelos, Andrew Biggart (in absentia)
Greater Yorkville Residents Association	Christina Kapelos, Andrew Biggart (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON OCTOBER 30, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This was a Settlement Hearing of an appeal by 906 Yonge Street Developments Ltd. (“Appellant”) under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (“City of TO Act”) against the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Site Plan for the properties municipally known as 906 Yonge Street and 25 McMurrich Street (together the “Subject Site”).

2Following extensive discussions between the Parties as well as Tribunal-led mediation, the Tribunal was advised, in advance of the Hearing, that a settlement had been reached between all Parties. The Tribunal was also advised that the Site Plan application remains with the City, and that the matter currently before the Tribunal involves the ZBA matter only.

3The only witness put forward by the Appellant was Alex Savanyu, who is a Registered Professional Planner. He provided a sworn Affidavit (found at Exhibit 2) and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. Mr. Savanyu’s detailed land use planning rationale in support of the settlement was unchallenged and is wholly accepted by the Tribunal.

4The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed and considered the following materials and submissions:

a) Affidavit of Alex Savanyu (marked as Exhibit 2)

b) Joint Document Book Volumes 1 and 2 (marked as Exhibits 3a and b);

c) Minutes of Settlement between the Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation and the Appellant (marked as Exhibit 4); and

d) Draft Order submitted on consent of all Parties.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

5Located northwest of the intersection of Yonge Street and Church Street, the Subject Property is a through lot with approximately 15.2 metres (“m”) of frontage on the west side of Yonge Street and approximately 40.7 m of frontage on the east side of McMurrich Street. It is rectangular in shape with a total area of approximately 2,287 square metres (“sq. m”) and is located in the Yorkville neighbourhood, which is:

characterized by a diverse mix of high-rise, mid-rise and low-rise built forms, including high-density development closest to the intersection of Yonge Street and Bloor Street, low-rise commercial retail streets north of Bloor Street, residential areas further north close to Ramsden Park, and a mix of high-rise and mid-rise buildings lining major streets throughout the neighbourhood. (Exhibit 2, paragraph 58)

6Of note, at 900 Yonge Street, there is a 15-storey residential/mixed-use building with retail at grade located to the south of the Subject Site along Yonge Street. That building:

is built to the north lot line and has a blank wall condition for the majority of the building face, with the exception of Levels 13 and 14 which feature secondary windows facing the Subject Site and stepbacks at the northeast and northwest corners to accommodate north-facing terraces. The building features unusual programming, being generally split midway along its Yonge Street frontage, with the northern half consisting of residential uses and the southern portion consisting of an office component, with shared rooftop mechanical space. The office component includes a series of stepbacks to transition to the heritage designated property to the south. (Exhibit 2, paragraph 70)

7The Subject Site features excellent access to public transit as it is near the Bloor-Yonge subway station (which provides access to both the Yonge-University-Spadina and the Bloor-Danforth subway lines) and is also serviced by, or in proximity to, several bus routes.

PROPOSAL

8The proposal before the Tribunal would permit the development of a 40-storey mixed-use building along Yonge Street and a 23-storey residential building along McMurrich Street. The Yonge Street building will incorporate the designated heritage building (known as Ridpath’s) to a depth of 7.5 m from the Yonge Street property line as the base for the tower. The proposal is described in detail in Mr. Savanyu’s Affidavit (at paragraphs 28-53), and would feature:

a) 425 dwelling units including 80 studio units (18.82%), 125 one-bedroom units (29.41%), 113 one-bedroom plus den units (26.58%), 64 two-bedroom units (15.05%) and 43 three-bedroom units (10.11%);

b) A gross floor area (“GFA”) of approximately 28,884.9 sq. m, including 74.9 sq. m of retail GFA along Yonge Street and 28,810 sq. m of residential GFA;

c) A total of 1,451 sq. m of amenity space, with the majority of indoor amenity space found on Levels 2 and 3 of each building. The amenity areas on Level 3 of each building will connect via an internal corridor along the north property line;

d) Access to parking and loading via McMurrich Street, including 61 car parking spaces on two underground levels as well as four short term spaces at grade and 425 bicycle parking on the P1 and P2 levels for both residents and visitors; and

e) A total of 74.9 sq. m of retail space on the ground floor fronting onto Yonge Street with a separate entrance accessed from the Yonge Street sidewalk.

9Mr. Savanyu provided the following chart to illustrate the changes between the initial proposal and the final proposal now before the Tribunal.

(Exhibit 2, page 111)

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

10In considering the ZBA, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and that it conforms to the applicable provincial plans and Official Plans.

11In addition, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, and in general, regard for the related decisions of the municipality, and be satisfied that the proposed ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest.

EVIDENCE

12Referring to his detailed evaluation of applicable land use policies (found in his Affidavit at paragraphs 75-166), Mr. Savanyu opined that the proposal:

a) Has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act;

b) Is consistent with the PPS, in particular, the policies relating to residential intensification, the efficient use of land and infrastructure and heritage conservation;

c) Conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”), and in particular, the policies that seek to optimize the use of land and infrastructure and to encourage growth and intensification in “strategic growth areas”, including “urban growth centres”;

d) Aligns with the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (“2041 RTP”) which provides detailed, integrated and multi-modal strategies and actions for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s transportation systems;

e) Conforms to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). It is permitted by the applicable Mixed Use Areas designation, which aims to allow residents the opportunity to live, work and shop in the same area, depend less on cars and create animated, attractive and safe districts along transit routes. It conforms with the with the public realm and urban design directives of Site and Area Specific Policy 211 (“SASP 211”) and with the growth management policies of the Downtown Secondary Plan. In addition, it conforms with the built form and massing policies of the OP (including SASP 211) and the Downtown Secondary Plan, and is in keeping with the applicable urban design guidelines;

f) Is contextually appropriate from a built form and urban design standpoint as it will represent a high-quality architectural addition to the Yorkville neighbourhood area, which is evolving. The proposal has regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines, the Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines, the Growing Up Guidelines and the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines; and

g) Is representative of good planning and in the public interest.

13Mr. Savanyu’s evidence also highlighted the following:

a) There was extensive collaboration between the Parties, including Tribunal-led mediation which led to refinements in built form as well as collaboration on the final form of the ZBA;

b) The type of dwelling units is clearly outlined in the ZBA with: a) a minimum of 15% with two or more bedrooms; b) a minimum of 10% with three or more bedrooms; and c) an additional 15% will be any combination of two and three bedroom or can be converted into any combination of two and three bedroom;

c) A Sky Garden, which will only be used as passive outdoor space, is featured in the design. It will minimize direct overlook and retain views for the impacted units in the building at 900 Yonge Street;

d) While not currently planned, a hotel use is permitted by the ZBA which clearly outlines how much GFA is permitted, which hotel uses are permitted and where said uses are permitted; and

e) Building setbacks were carefully reviewed and it was Mr. Savanyu’s evidence that all setbacks and stepbacks were appropriate, including, but not limited to:

• A revised building articulation along the Yonge Street façade. Where the Original Proposal designed a staggered cantilever of the heritage building, the revised design provides a 7.5 metre building setback up to the height of the Sky Garden, and steps back an additional 1.0 metre above the Sky Garden.
• An approximately 1.0 metre setback along the north lot line for the majority of the Yonge Building.
• Increased setback to the south lot line of the Yonge Building to ensure a 2.0 metre separation distance between buildings.
• A revised tower floor plate for the McMurrich Building to provide a 20-metre separation distance between towers.
• Increased setback of the McMurrich Building along McMurrich Street to expand the public realm.
• A lowering of the scale of the McMurrich Building along McMurrich Street. The Original Proposal included a 2-storey streetwall, stepped back to levels 3 to 7, again at levels 8 to 17 and levels 18 to 19, whereas the Current Plans include a 2-storey streetwall, stepped back to level 3, again at level 22, and level 23.
• Increased setback of the McMurrich Building to the south lot line. The Original Proposal included a setback of approximately 4.57 metres, whereas the Current Plans include a setback a minimum of 8.0 metres. This resulted in an increased separation distance to the north-facing windows of the building at 15 McMurrich Street. (Exhibit 2, paragraph 177)

14It was Mr. Savanyu’s summary opinion that the proposal finds an appropriate balance in implementing the necessary planning policies and he recommended approval of the ZBA.

FINDINGS

15The Tribunal recognizes that the sworn Affidavit evidence of Mr. Savanyu entails revisions to the applications that were reached through the cooperation of the Parties.

16The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Savanyu and similarly finds that the requested ZBA is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the GP and the OP, including the Downtown Secondary Plan.

17The Tribunal finds that the proposal will provide an appropriate level of intensification in a strategic growth area with significant access to transit which results in the efficient use of land and infrastructure. The Tribunal also finds that the proposal incorporates a designated heritage building, will fit into the context of the neighbourhood, and is appropriate in terms of height and density. Finally, the Tribunal finds that the proposal serves the public interest through the creation of new housing options within the Downtown Toronto urban growth centre.

18The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and finds that the proposed instrument represents good planning and is in the public interest.

INTERIM ORDER

19The Tribunal Orders that the appeal of the Zoning By-law Amendment application is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [22] below.

20The Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order is approved in principle.

21The development proposal as generally depicted on the plans prepared by IBI Group (now Arcadis) dated May 1, 2023, contained within Exhibit C of Alex Savanyu’s Affidavit, is approved in principle.

22The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order on the Zoning By-law Amendment contingent upon confirmation by the City Solicitor 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 that the Appellant 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 that the Appellant 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;

d) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant 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;

e) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 906 Yonge Street (including the entrance address at 908 Yonge Street), substantially in accordance with plans and drawings prepared by IBI Group, and dated May 1, 2023, submitted with the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated April 28, 2023, subject to and in accordance with the approved Plan required in Recommendation 1.a.2, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

f) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant 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 906 Yonge Street (including the entrance address at 908 Yonge Street), prepared by ERA Architects Inc., dated April 28, 2023, and details all future conservation efforts as part of this application, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

g) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant has submitted an application, and gained approval in writing under Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, for the proposed alterations to the heritage property at 906 Yonge Street; and

h) The Final Order will issue after the fulfillment of all conditions as advised by the City Solicitor and after the Tribunal has reviewed and approved the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

23The Panel Member will remain seized and may be spoken to in the event some matter should arise in connection with the implementation of this Interim Order.

24A status report will be provided by the Parties to the Tribunal no later than 120 days after the date of issuance of this Interim Order, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

25The 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 continent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA
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