Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 19, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001250
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1094950 Ontario Limited
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the site with a 23-storey mixed-use building
Reference Number: 22 179828 STE 10 OZ
Property Address: 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001250
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001250
OLT Case Name: 1094950 Ontario Limited v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Appellant: 1094950 Ontario Limited
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit the redevelopment of the site with a 23-storey mixed-use building
Reference Number: 22 179827 STE 10 SA
Property Address: 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001251
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001250
Heard: August 6, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
1094950 Ontario Limited
Rodney Gill David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Sarah O'Connor Uttra Gautam (in absentia)
Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association (“WPNA”)
Andrew King*
Draper Street Residents Association Inc. (“DSRA”)
Florence S. Narine*
memorandum of oral DECISION delivered BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON aUGUST 6, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal was scheduled as the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) relating to Appeals pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions within the statutory timeframes with respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Site Plan Application (“SPA”) (“Appeals”).
2The Appeals were filed by 1094950 Ontario Limited (“Applicant”) to facilitate the development of a 23-storey mixed-use building for the properties municipally known as 467-479 Wellington Street West and 33 Draper Street (“Subject Site”). However, since the last CMC, the Parties advised the Tribunal that a Settlement of the matter was achieved.
3The Settlement Proposal (“Settlement”) was ultimately endorsed by the City on July 24, 2024, with conditions, and on consent of the two Resident Associations (WPNA and DSRA). The City Council also directed its Legal and Planning staff to appear before the Tribunal in support of the Settlement. All of the Parties were present and requested the Tribunal proceed with a Hearing on the Settlement.
4With reasons that follow below in this Decision, the Tribunal concurred and allowed the Appeals, in part, and approved the ZBA, in principle, withholding its Final Order pending confirmation from the City Solicitor that the conditions have been approved by the City and holds the SPA in abeyance.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
5In deciding on the matters before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed Settlement is representative of good planning and in the public interest. The proposed planning instruments must be found to: have appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”); conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”); and conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”).
PLANNING EVIDENCE
6An Affidavit sworn by Mr. David McKay, dated August 5, 2024, including his Witness Statement, Curriculum Vitae, and Acknowledgement of Experts’ Duty, was marked as Exhibit 1.
7Mr. McKay was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence relating to Land Use Planning matters related to the Settlement and noted that he has had primary carriage of the matter and was first retained by the Applicant in April of 2022.
SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT
8The Subject Site is located at the southeast corner of Wellington Street West and Draper Street and is approximately 0.19 Hectares (“ha”) in size, with 37.2 metres (“m”) of frontage along Wellington Street West, and 42.7 m of frontage along Draper Street, and consists of a two-storey office building 3,316 metres squared (“m2)”. The current building on the Subject Site is identified as one that contributes to design, historical and contextual significance, and is within the King Street Heritage Conservation District (“KSHCD”). Consequently, it is listed on the City’s Heritage Register, and following review from the City’s Heritage Planning staff, both the original application and the Settlement that followed were allowed to proceed without any concerns or objection.
9The Subject Site is also located within a short distance (550 m – 850 m) to four local parks, a variety of local public and special needs schools, and is within close proximity (500 m) to busy local TTC stations providing Streetcar and Bus options to the area’s population and is readily accessible to Subway systems in the downtown area. There are also two planned major transit stations (“MTSAs”) including the Spadina-Front GO station, proposed at Front Street West and Spadina Avenue, and the King-Bathurst Ontario Line Station.
10Mr. McKay testified at a high level around the various dynamics of the area by highlighting several projects and expanded further on these in his witness statement (Exhibit 1, pgs. 7-9) in greater detail, with an emphasis on higher mid-rise built-form project examples under construction or completed. Among a number of examples, and perhaps the most significant, is the recently completed project known as “The Well”, located just outside the KSHCD, consisting of seven mixed-use buildings totalling 287, 640 m2 of gross floor area, with building heights ranging from 13 to 45 storeys.
THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
11Mr. McKay briefly outlined the original proposal as submitted in April 2022, and then proceeded to highlight the differences with the current proposal (“Proposal”) as agreed to through the Settlement.
12For ease of reference, Mr. McKay highlighted the following summary chart (Exhibit 1, pg. 17) comparing the original proposal with the Settlement below:
Original Proposal (July 2022)
Settlement Plans (July 2024)
Proposed Gross Floor Area (GFA)
+/- 19,803.4 m²
+/- 16,184.6 m²
Proposed Residential GFA
+/- 19,345 m²
+/- 15,767.6 m²
Proposed Commercial GFA
+/- 417 m²
+/- 417 m²
Proposed FSI
10.52
8.61
Proposed Residential Units
225
172
One-Bedroom Units
83 (37%)
68 (39.5%)
Two-Bedroom Units
107 (48%)
55 (32%)
Three-Bedroom Units
35 (15%)
49 (28.5%)
Proposed Building Height
23 storeys (+/- 73.73 m,
16 storeys (+/- 60 m inclusive of
excluding the mechanical
mechanical penthouse)
penthouse and elevator over-run
which projects an additional 7.0
metres)
Proposed Amenity Space
900 m²
688 m²
Indoor Amenity Space
450m² (2 m²/unit)
344 m² (2.0 m²/unit)
Outdoor Amenity Space
450 m² (2 m²/unit)
344 m² (2.0 m²/unit)
Proposed Vehicular Parking Spaces
56
56
Proposed Bicycle Parking Spaces
253
253
13The key revisions to the original proposal include;
a) reduced building height from 23-storeys (73.73 m, excluding the mechanical penthouse and elevator over-run which projects an additional 7.0 m) to 16-storeys (60 m inclusive of mechanical penthouse);
b) reduced floor space index (“FSI”) density from 10.52 FSI to 8.61 FSI;
c) reduced gross floor area (“GFA”) from approximately 19,803.4 m2; consisting of 417.0 m2 of non-residential space and approximately 19,345 m2 of residential space to approximately 16,184.6 m2, consisting of 417m2 of non-residential space and approximately 15,767.6 m2 of residential space;
d) reduced from 225 residential units consisting of 83 one-bedrooms (37%), 107 two bedrooms (48%), and 35 three-bedroom units (15%) to 172 residential units consisting of 68 one-bedroom units (39.5%), 55 two-bedroom units (32%), and 49 three-bedroom units (28.5%);
e) maintaining 4 m2 of indoor / outdoor amenity space; and
f) Increased step backs incorporated into the design as follows:
Along Wellington Street West: A 0.9 m step back above Level 2; a further 4.5 m step back above Level 8; and a further step back above Level 11 of 3 m;
Along Draper Street: A step back of 2.0 m above Level 2 with a setback terrace at Level 3 (3.4 m in depth);
Along the east property line: A step back of 5.5 m above Level 1 / 2; and
Along the south property line: A setback of 1.5 m above Level 3.
14The current City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 was enacted on May 9, 2013, and is applicable to the Subject Site as “Commercial Residential Employment (CRE(x1))” which permits a wide range of land uses, and a maximum height of 23 m. The Settlement proposes changes to this through a Site Specific ZBA allowing the Proposal’s 60 m revised height (inclusive of the rooftop mechanical). The built form will predominantly front along Wellington Street West, with terracing on level 2, level 9, and level 11. The unit mix reflects a commitment to a significantly higher proportion of approximately 60% of the units designed for family-oriented two and three bedroom units, whereas the Downtown Plan typically seeks a 40% target.
PLANNING OPINION, AND LEGISLATIVE/POLICY MATTERS
Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”)
15Mr. McKay referred to his witness statement for greater detail regarding the Settlement and summarized that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS in the following areas:
a) Efficient use of land and existing infrastructure;
b) Protection of natural and built environment;
c) Ensuring strong, sustainable, and resilient communities that encourage positive local social and employment opportunities;
d) Promotes a mix of housing with a particular emphasis on the expanded family-oriented units;
e) Is a major transit supportive Proposal, with a variety of accessible transportation choices encouraging transit, and includes affordable housing through intensification where it can be accommodated; and,
f) Encourages a sense of place in communities, by promoting well-designed built form and conserve features that help define local character.
The Growth Plan 2020 (“GP”)
16Mr. McKay opined that the Settlement conforms to the GP by highlighting several criteria including the following:
a) Achieves well-designed healthy and active living, helping to achieve complete communities;
b) Achieves more efficient use of land, resources and infrastructure reducing sprawl, and encourages environmental sustainability with compact built form and public realm;
c) Provides an integrated approach to infrastructure planning;
d) Provides a diverse range of housing options, with connections to employment, service facilities, recreation/green space and better access to transit;
e) Prioritizes intensification with higher densities in a strategic growth area;
f) Supports a range and mix of housing options;
g) Improves integration of land use planning through integrated service delivery by all government levels;
h) Conserves cultural heritage; and
i) Is adaptive to changing climate considerations, supportive of environmentally sustainable communities.
Official Plan (“OP”), Downtown Plan (“DP”), and King-Spadina Secondary Plan 1996 (“KSSP”)
17Mr. McKay provided an overview that the Settlement conforms with the OP, the DP and the KSSP. A more recent KSSP OPA(“OPA-486”), adopted in January 2020, designated the Subject Site within the West Precinct, with a proposed height limit of 50 m, and with Mixed Use Area 2 designation in the DP. OPA 486 is currently under a separate appeal by the Applicant, and the matter remains adjourned sine die and is not before the Tribunal for the purposes of the Settlement.
18Mr. McKay stated that the Subject Site falls within a Regeneration Area designation, and the Proposal responds to the desire for a reduction of auto-dependency, delivering quality urban design and helping to ensure complete communities. He asserted that the massing and built form which follows the Settlement, maintains appropriate setbacks, step backs, and with the reduced height, addresses any and all concerns previously identified by the City and adjacent community associations.
19Regarding Heritage, the Proposal preserves the integrity of the Subject Site’s cultural heritage value and attributes and satisfies the City accordingly.
20Furthermore, Mr. McKay opined that the Proposal meets the urban design guidelines as they relate to new development in the KSSP and the DP. The Proposal properly reflects the area character, greening/community strategies, transportation policies, and environmental policies for the area. He elaborates further on many of the requisite policies that the Settlement achieves, in his witness statement (Exhibit 1, pgs. 22-25).
Section 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”)
21Finally, Mr. McKay opined that in addition to his overview of the above guidelines, the Settlement has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest including but not limited to s.2 of the Act. It represents a redevelopment of the Subject Site that is well suited for intensification, providing an appropriate level of density that is transit-supportive, and in close proximity to future higher order transit. It implements the Provincial policy directives and helps to achieve the City’s density targets for this specific Urban Growth Centre.
PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS
22There were four Participants who were granted status at previous hearing events, who expressed concerns about building height, parking, services and transportation access, landscaping/tree preservation, and the future impact of construction at the Subject Site, among other issues.
23Mr. McKay testified that the most significant concerns from Participants related to the following:
a) The building height concern as the most significant issue, was demonstrably addressed in the Settlement with a 25% reduction in height, from 23 storeys to 16 storeys with a maximum height of 60 m, as opposed to the original height of approximately 73.3 m;
b) Access from Draper Street for trucks, loading and garbage represented the most efficient, and pragmatic option for the Subject Site, approved by City staff, including City Engineering, and appropriately addressed in the Settlement to the satisfaction of all the Parties;
c) Parking supply is at an appropriate level based on the Subject Site’s proximity to two future “Protected” MTSAs whereby the Province has indicated it intends to eliminate City By-law parking provision requirements in the immediate future. Furthermore, the current supply through the Settlement secures the City’s approval for what is in the Proposal with 56 parking spaces and 253 bicycle spaces;
d) Landscaping and Tree Preservation will form part of the very detailed SPA discussions and review process and is expected to form part of the conditions’ component of the Proposal’s final approval from the City; and,
e) Construction of the Proposal will also be addressed through the SPA analysis at that time.
CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION
24Based on the uncontroverted evidence from the Applicant witness, through the comprehensive witness statement and oral testimony, as it relates to the Settlement with the City, the WPNA and the DSRA, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement as presented, merits approval as it meets all of the necessary legislative tests and is representative of good planning in the public interest.
25The Parties have clearly worked diligently to achieve acceptable revisions to an original plan that did not entirely satisfy the Parties concerned with the Application in its original proposed built form and design. The significant changes implemented through the public consultation process, discussions with the WPNA, DSRA and ultimately the City, have resulted in a Proposal which further reinforces the Provincial and Municipal objectives in a meaningful proposal.
INTERIM ORDER
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal by 1094950 Ontario Limited pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [27] below, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Exhibit “1” (pgs. 379-386) in the Affidavit of David McKay is hereby approved in principle; and,
27The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon satisfaction of the following pre-requisite matters:
a) The Tribunal receiving for its review and approval the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, confirmed to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor; and,
b) The Tribunal receiving confirmation from the Applicant and the City that the Owner has at its sole cost and expense:
i. submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including the 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, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development; and,
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 infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure, as may be required.
28THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the Site Plan Appeal pursuant to s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, shall remain adjourned sine die; and,
29THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that:
i. the Applicant and the City are directed to update the Tribunal through the assigned Case Coordinator on or before November 29, 2024, related to their progress with the above noted conditions and the expected timeline in which they intend to request issuance of the Final Order; and,
ii. the nine-day Merit Hearing as scheduled in March 2025, is cancelled, and removed from the Tribunal Hearing calendar.
30The Member will remain seized for the purposes of issuing the Final Order and may be spoken to should issues arise with respect to the implementation of this Order.
“Steven T. Mastoras”
STEVEN T. MASTORAS
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.