Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 02, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001076
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1989627 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To propose a 26-storeys mixed-used residential development.
Reference Number: 23 228917 WET 03 OZ
Property Address: 210 Islington Avenue and 99 Birmingham Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001076
OLT Case Name: 1989627 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: September 22, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 1989627 Ontario Inc. | R. Barron C. Tanzola D. Teichman (articling student) |
| City of Toronto | R. Godley S. O’Connor (in absentia) |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by 1989627 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) arising from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision to amend a Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), pursuant to ss. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the properties located at 210 Islington Avenue and 99 Birmingham Street (“subject property / site”).
2The Appellant is seeking to develop a 14-storey mixed-use building with 302 units.
3Prior to the Hearing, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved their issues.
4Kevin McKrow, a Registered Professional Planner, and a full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, provided a Sworn Affidavit (Exhibit 1), and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matter under appeal. Mr. McKrow delivered a detailed, contextual, land use planning rationale in support of the settlement.
SITE CONTEXT AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
5The subject property is comprised as an assembly of two properties located within the New Toronto Neighbourhood and is within the northern portion of the block bound by Birmingham Street to the north, Islington Avenue to the east and Eighth Street to the west. It is approximately two kilometres (“km”) south of the Islington Avenue and Gardiner Expressway on/off ramps and is one km north of Lake Ontario.
6The site is rectangular in shape. It has 36.63 metres (“m”) of frontage on Islington Avenue, 76.20 m on Birmingham Street, 36.58 m on Eighth Street and is 2,789.70 square metres (“m2”) in size.
7The eastern part of the subject property (210 Islington Avenue) currently consists of a one-to-three-storey commercial building occupied by a place of worship and parking. The western part of the site (99 Birmingham Street) contains a parking lot associated with the place of worship.
8Mr. McKrow stated that the site is located in close proximity to a commercial and industrial area north of Birmingham Street and a mixed use commercial and residential area south of Birmingham Street.
9Mr. McKrow proffered that Birmingham Street provides barrier-protected bicycle lanes between Kipling Avenue and Dwight Avenue. The site is also in close proximity to public transit, with the nearest bus stop located at Islington Avenue and Birmingham Street that provides service seven days a week, including overnight, as well as streetcar service, with the nearest stop located within 250 m along Lake Shore Boulevard West.
10Mr. McKrow said that the original application was for a 26-storey mixed-use building with retail uses at-grade and residential uses above (“Original Application”). However, as a result of mediation, the application was revised, and the height of the proposed building was reduced to 14-storeys (“Revised Application”).
11The table below provides a comparison between the Original Application and the Revised Application:
| Feature | Initial Application | Revised Application |
|---|---|---|
| Total Height | 26 storeys 80.47 m to top of roof 85.47 m (including mechanical penthouse) |
14 storeys 46.17 m to top of roof 51.87 m (including mechanical penthouse) |
| Streetwall Height | six storeys 19.75 m |
seven storeys 22.70 m |
| Minimum Curb-to- Building-Face Setback | 6.30 m (Eighth Street) 8.08 m (Birmingham Street) 7.84 m (Islington Avenue) |
6.30 m (Eighth Street) 8.13 m (Birmingham Street) 7.88 m (Islington Avenue) |
| Minimum Setbacks | North 0.1 m East 0.1 m South: 10.85 metres (podium) and 12.5 metres (tower) West: 0.1 m Ground floor setback of 2.0 m along all three street frontages |
North 0 m East 0 m South 0 m West 0 m Ground floor setback of 2.1 m along all three street frontages |
| Floorplate | 1,628 to 1,721 m2 (podium) and 750 m2 (tower) | 1,651 to 1,975 m2 (streetwall) and 1,379 m2 (upper portion) |
| Total Gross Floor Area | 23,202 m2 | 20,717 m2 |
| Commercial Gross Floor Area | 1,000 m2 | 1,000 m2 |
| Residential Gross Floor Area | 22,202 m2 | 19,717 m2 |
| Amenity Space | 704 m2 (Indoor) 786 m2 (Outdoor) 1,490 m2 (Total) |
604 m2 (Indoor) 604 m2 (Outdoor) 1,208 m2 (Total) |
| Amenity Rates | 2 m2 per unit of indoor amenity 2.23 m2 per unit of outdoor amenity |
2 m2 per unit of indoor amenity 2 m2 per unit of outdoor amenity |
| Residential Units | Studio and One-bedroom: 255 units (72.5%) Two-bedroom: 58 units (16.5%) Three-bedroom: 39 units (11%) Total: 352 units |
Studio and One-bedroom: 222 units (73.5%) Two-bedroom: 45 units (14.9%) Three-bedroom: 35 units (11.6%) Total: 302 units |
| Floor Space Index | 8.32 (gross) 8.83 (net) |
7.43 (gross) 7.88 (net) |
| Residential Parking | 127 spaces (0.36 spaces / unit) | 144 spaces (0.47 spaces / unit) |
| Minimum Visitor Parking | 20 spaces (0.05 spaces / unit) | 17 spaces (0.05 spaces / unit) |
| Minimum Commercial Parking | 0 spaces | 0 spaces |
| Bicycle Parking | 265 spaces | 227 spaces |
PLANNING RATIONALE
12The planning policy documents related to the proposed development are s. 2 of the Act, the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), City Official Plan (“COP”), Site and Area Specific Policy 784 (“SASP 784”), Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) 727 (“OPA 727”), Zoning By-laws (“ZBLs”), and the Mid-rise Building Design Guidelines and Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines (“Growing Up Guidelines”) (together “Guidelines”).
13In Mr. McKrow’s opinion, the development proposal has regard for the matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and specifically, ss. 2(f), 2(h), 2(i), 2(j), 2(k), 2(n), 2(p), 2(q), and 2(r) are applicable.
14In his view, the Revised Application is consistent with policies 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 of the PPS. The Revised Application will introduce a compact and urbanized mixed-use development with a range and mix of market-based housing options to support Toronto’s growing population in a location with convenient access to transit and other amenities. In addition, it will also introduce 1,000 m2 of non-residential uses at-grade to support employment and the economic health of the surrounding area.
15Mr. McKrow stated that the Revised Application conforms to the COP, including Policy Chapters 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.13, 3.1.4 and others. The proposed development offers a strong opportunity to integrate transportation and land use planning initiatives through compact and mixed-use redevelopment of an existing, underutilized, commercial building and surface parking lot and by introducing new housing options and commercial development in close proximity to nearby commercial and recreational amenities, places of employment and higher educational institutions within walking distance or a short trip by a public transit.
16Mr. McKrow testified that on December 12, 2023, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved OPA 591 and brought SASP 784 into full force and effect. It redesignates the subject property as Mixed Use Areas, requires that a minimum of 1,000 m2 of non-residential employment uses be developed prior to, or concurrent with, the residential uses, and requires the securing of a minimum amount of affordable or rental housing.
17He stated that the Appellant is currently contemplating the possibility of developing the project as purpose-built rental and understands the application of affordable housing, should the project not proceed in this manner.
18Mr. McKrow explained that the Appellant is not seeking any relief from SASP 784 in these proceedings. Further, if the first option from above is selected, then the ZBA will be finalized without a holding condition. However, if the second option is pursued, a ZBA will be finalized with a holding provision.
19In summary, Mr. McKrow is of the opinion that the development proposal conforms to and implements the policy objectives of SASP 784.
20Mr. McKrow provided that, in his opinion, the proposed development is compatible with its surroundings and that the final form of the ZBA will be required to be completed to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning prior to the issuance of a final order by the Tribunal.
21In his testimony, Mr. McKrow reviewed the Mid-rise Building Design Guidelines and Growing Up Guidelines. He is satisfied that the development proposal has regard and takes into consideration the intent of both Guidelines. The development proposal is appropriately scaled and proportioned mid-rise building which fits harmoniously with the surrounding area, and it will implement an appropriate mix of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units.
22Mr. McKrow addressed concerns raised by Juanita Forde McDermott. In his opinion, the reduction of height from 26 to 14 storeys appropriately responds to the issue of height raised in Ms. Forde McDermotts’ Participant Statement.
23In Mr. McKrow’s professional opinion, the requested ZBA is an appropriate and desirable form of redevelopment and should be approved.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
24Having reviewed the uncontested planning evidence of Mr. McKrow, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development has regard for matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, has regard to the policies and guidelines of the COP, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, and Zoning By-law no. 569-2013 is amended as indicated in the Attachment 1.
26The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the Parties that:
a) the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;
b) the Appellant, at their sole cost and expense, has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to demonstrate that the existing sanitary sewer system and watermain and any required improvements to them, have adequate capacity and supply to accommodate the development of the lands to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;
c) if the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report requires any new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development, then either:
the Appellant has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities for any new municipal infrastructure, or any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, to support the development, in a financially secured agreement, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review; or
the required new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development in the accepted and satisfactory Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report are constructed and operational, all to the satisfaction to the Director, Engineering Review;
d) the Appellant has addressed all outstanding issues identified in the Engineering and Construction Services’ correspondence, dated June 28, 2024, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;
e) the Appellant has provided a revised Transportation Impact Study to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;
f) the Appellant has provided a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including a Wind Tunnel Study, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
g) the submitted Compatibility/Mitigation Study and Roadway Traffic Noise Feasibility Assessment, both dated September 20, 2023, prepared by Gradient Wind Engineering Inc., have been peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant retained by the City at the owner's expense, and the owner agrees to implement any necessary control measures and recommendations identified by the peer review, with the control measures to be secured through the Site Plan Control process, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
h) the Appellant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, as they relate to the application, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry; and
i) one of the following conditions has been met to secure the provision of affordable housing or purpose-built rental in accordance with Site and Area Specific Policy 784:
the Appellant has submitted a Housing Issues Report identifying how affordable and/or purpose-built rental housing requirements will be met, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the owner has made satisfactory arrangements and entered into one or more agreements, which may include a restriction pursuant to Section 118 of the Land Titles Act registered on title to the lands to secure the provision of affordable or purpose built rental housing, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; or
a holding provision is included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment outlining that the holding provision will not be lifted until such time as the owner has submitted a Housing Issues Report identifying how affordable and/or purpose-built rental housing requirements will be met, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and entered into one or more agreements to secure the provision of affordable or purpose-built rental housing, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
27AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that it may be spoken to should there be any issues with the implementation of this Interim Order.
28The Parties shall provide an update to the Tribunal within six months from the issue date.
“P. Tomilin”
P. tomilin
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