CSG Yonge Manor Ltd. and CSG Hillsdale Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 68210

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 10, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000572

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request

Description: To permit the redevelopment of the subject property for a 29-storey building with 486 residential units.

Reference Number: 23 200789 STE 12 OZ

Property Address: Various Addresses - 2079 Yonge Street (2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9-11, 21, and 31 Hillsdale Avenue East and 12-18 Manor Road East)

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000572

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000572

OLT Case Name: CSG Yonge Manor Ltd. and CSG Hillsdale Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application

Reference Number: 23 200789 STE 12 OZ

Property Address: Various Addresses - 2079 Yonge Street (2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9-11, 21, and 31 Hillsdale Avenue East and 12-18 Manor Road East)

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000573

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000572

OLT Case Name: CSG Yonge Manor Ltd. and CSG Hillsdale Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: April 28-29, 2025 and May 2 and 29, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited

Counsel David Bronskill

Parties Amskor Corporation

Counsel Greg Woodward (on April 28-29, 2025 and May 2, 2025 only)

Parties City of Toronto

Counsel Jason Davidson Amrit Sandhu (on April 28-29, 2025 and May 2, 2025 only)

DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited (“Appellants”) appealed the refusal by the City of Toronto (“City”) of the Appellants’ applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the lands located at 2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9-11, 21, 31, 35 and part of 37 Hillsdale Avenue East, and 12-18 and part of 20 Manor Road East (“subject lands”).

2The proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments would facilitate the construction of a 26-storey mixed-use development containing 473 dwelling units. There are currently 33 rental dwelling units on the subject lands.

3At a Case Management Conference held on October 16, 2024, the Tribunal granted party status to Amskor Corporation (“Amskor”), which is the owner of a single detached dwelling located at 33 Hillsdale Avenue East. The Tribunal granted Participant status to Miso Choi on behalf of the unincorporated Hillsdale-Manor Tenants’ Association and to Jeff Latto on behalf of the South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association (SEDRA).

4The subject lands are designated Mixed Use Areas, Parks and Open Space Areas – Parks, and Neighbourhoods under the City’s Official Plan. They are zoned CR SS2 (x554), OR (x39) and R (d0.6)(x931) under Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 (through By-law No. 595-2022) (“Zoning By-law”).

5Through settlement discussions between the Appellants and the City prior to the hearing, they were able to come to an agreement on all of the issues apart from the question of the permissible number of small retail units on the ground floor of the proposed development. The Appellants sought to have a provision in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment requiring a minimum of three retail units on the ground floor. The City sought a required minimum of six retail units. Issues relating to the proposed massing, form, character, and fit of the proposed development were not at issue between the Appellants and the City. Among other elements, they were in agreement on the following aspects of the proposed development:

• a proposed overall building height of 26-storeys (86.15 metres (“m”), excluding mechanical penthouse);
• a podium height of 11-storeys (40.3 m) along Hillsdale Avenue East and 8-storeys (30.3 m) along Yonge Street and Manor Road East;
• replacement of the existing 33 rental dwelling units;
• expansion of the site area from 5023.8 square metres (“m²”) to 5,626.9 m² with 562.9 m² of on-site parkland dedication along Hillsdale Avenue East; and
• stepbacks above the heritage building at 2111 Yonge Street along Yonge Street and Hillsdale Avenue East to 3 m.

6The hearing on the merits of the appeal was held on April 28 and 29, 2025 and continued on May 2 and 29, 2025.

7At the conclusion of submissions on April 29, 2025, the Tribunal raised concerns regarding conformity with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405) (“Secondary Plan”) and invited all Parties to engage in discussions. The hearing was adjourned to May 2, 2025 at which time the Appellants and the City informed the Tribunal that they had reached a full proposed settlement of all of the issues before the Tribunal. On May 29, 2025, they presented revisions to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments.

8Amskor did not agree to the revised proposed settlement. Its issues remain contested.

ISSUES

9The issues to be adjudicated on official plan amendment appeals are whether the proposed amendments:

• are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”);
• conform with applicable provincial plans; and
• represent good planning.

10The issues to be adjudicated on zoning by-law amendment appeals are whether the proposed amendments:

• are consistent with the PPS;
• conform with applicable provincial plans;
• conform with applicable official plans, which in the present case include the City’s Official Plan and the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan; and
• represent good planning.

When considering these appeals, the Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and it must have regard to the City’s decision refusing the proposed amendments along with the information that the City had before it when considering the matters.

11The Tribunal must determine whether the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments satisfy these tests. Amskor’s issues will be addressed through the application of these tests. As set out in the Issues List incorporated in the Tribunal’s Procedural Order, issued on October 18, 2024, Amskor’s issues are the following:

• Does the proposed development conform with the City’s Official Plan, including but not limited to: a. Healthy Neighbourhoods: policy 2.3.1; and, b. Mixed Use Areas: policy 4.5.2(c) and (d); and,
• Does the proposed development conform to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan: a. Built Form: policy 5.1.1(b); b. Permitted Building Types and Urban Design Standards: policies 5.3.1, 5.3.31, and 5.3.33(c) and (g); and, c. Building Heights: policies 5.4.1, 5.4.3.

As set out below, this Decision addresses these issues and applies the above-mentioned tests to the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

Appellants’ Evidence and Submissions

12Stephen Armstrong provided evidence on behalf of the Appellants. He is a land use planner and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

13Mr. Armstrong stated that the subject lands are an assembly of properties in the area of the east side of Yonge Street between Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East. In addition to the site of the proposed development, he said the Appellants also own 39 and 41 and the remaining part of 37 Hillsdale Avenue Road East and the remaining part of 20 Manor Road East. He said these adjacent lands are available for purchase by the City as additional parklands beyond what is contemplated through the proposed development.

14Mr. Armstrong stated that the proposed development would be a 26-storey mixed-use building with retail at grade and residential above. He said the proposed main building would be composed of an 8-12 storey “C”-shaped podium with a tower at the northwest corner. He said the total gross floor area of the development would be approximately 35,000 m², which includes 1,800 m² of ground-floor retail and 33,600 m² of residential uses. He said the 473 residential units would include 284 one-bedroom, 136 two-bedroom, and 52 three-bedroom units, and one four-bedroom unit. He said there would also be four 3-bedroom two-storey townhouses on Manor Road East.

15Mr. Armstrong stated that vehicular access would be through a 6 m wide driveway to the east (behind the proposed building) running parallel to Yonge Street. He said it would provide access to a ramp to underground parking and to Type B and Type G loading spaces. He stated that resident pick-up and drop-off and short-term deliveries would be made using a circular drive within a courtyard accessed by the proposed driveway. He said there would be 251 parking spaces, including at least 12 visitor spaces, in two levels of underground parking. He said there would also be 521 bicycle parking spaces.

16Mr. Armstrong stated that several existing properties within the subject lands are listed, including 2079-2085 and 2093-2109 Yonge Street, and 2111 Yonge Street, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Under the proposed development, he said the original west and north facade of 2111 Yonge Street would be retained, but each of the other listed buildings would be demolished. He said the Toronto Preservation Board agrees with this plan and, on November 14, 2024, City Council adopted a resolution in support of it.

17Regarding rental housing on the subject lands, Mr. Armstrong stated that the lands presently include 33 residential rental units and that rental replacement concerns raised by the City and those raised by the Participant, Miso Choi, have been addressed. He stated that the Appellants intend to replace each of the rental units with similar rental unit types and sizes in the proposed development.

18Mr. Armstrong stated that the proposed development would provide a roughly 560 m² parkland conveyance. He reiterated that the Appellants have offered to sell to the City the additional roughly 950 m² adjacent lands for parkland as well.

19Mr. Armstrong opined that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. He stated that they are located close to transit, provide housing and retail, make use of existing infrastructure, and help the City meet its population targets.

20Mr. Armstrong opined that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the PPS. He said they would facilitate intensification of an underutilized site and would optimize the use of existing and planned transit, community facilities, and other local services.

21Mr. Armstrong stated that the proposed retail units on Yonge Street and Hillsdale Avenue East would be designed to complement the small-scale main street character common to the area. He said the facade on Yonge Street would have four distinct two-storey masonry “units” that reflect and conserve the narrow masonry bays that characterize the existing Yonge Street streetscape and would have several retail doors to allow for different sized retail units. Mr. Armstrong stated that the City’s Official Plan policy 3.5.5 addresses maximum retail unit sizes and minimum first-storey heights based on local conditions. He said the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan also identifies maximum retail unit sizes in specified local areas. He noted that some of the proposed retail units would not meet the minimum 15 m depth required under the Secondary Plan due to the location of residential elevators and emergency exits and would instead have a depth of roughly 10.5 m.

22Mr. Armstrong stated that the proposed main building would have an 8 m setback on its east side and stepbacks that range in depth from 2.5 m to 3 m. He said the tower would be 35 m from the east property line. He said these setbacks conform with the City’s Official Plan. He stated that the massing of the proposed development would be focused at the northwest corner with the 26 storey tower. He said that across the street from the tower, on Hillsdale Avenue East, is the existing 28-storey Art Shoppe Condominium. He said the proposed development would provide transition in height down to the south and east to respect and reinforce the context of the area. He said the proposed development would have an eight-storey podium along Yonge Street creating a pedestrian scale at grade and a 12-storey podium at its northwest corner to complement the podium of the Art Shoppe Condominium.

23Mr. Armstrong opined that the proposed development appropriately mitigates impacts on the adjacent Neighbourhood lands and is compatible with their character and context. In particular, he opined that the proposed development would create an appropriate transition in scale between the Mixed Use Areas on Yonge Street and the adjacent Neighbourhoods to the east. Mr. Armstrong stated that the proposed development mitigates impacts on adjacent low-rise land uses by means of the driveway along the eastern side providing an 8 m setback between the proposed building and adjacent land uses, stepbacks at the fifth, seventh and ninth to twelfth floors, and the location of the tower at the northwest corner of the site with the setback of at least 35 m from the east property line.

24Mr. Armstrong stated that the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan provides direction on growth in Midtown Toronto and identifies character areas including the Yonge Street South Village Character Area in which the subject lands are located. He said Midtown Villages are historic main streets constituting destinations for residents, workers, and visitors to accommodate a mix of uses in well-proportioned buildings that conserve heritage resources. He said that under Secondary Plan policy 1.3.2, new buildings are to maintain narrow retail frontages, frequent entrances, and active uses at grade. He said the design of the proposed development reflects a modern reinterpretation of the existing frontage with a small-scale rhythm of store fronts that pays tribute to the existing character of this strip of Yonge Street.

25Regarding building height and massing, Mr. Armstrong stated that Secondary Plan policy 5 directs that built-form should be in an appropriate type, form, and scale for the area. He stated that Secondary Plan policy 5.4.3(k) directs that building heights in the Yonge Street Village Character Area should range between 8 and 15 storeys. However, he said that, under policy 5.4.10, additional heights are permissible without an official plan amendment if the proposal adequately limits shadows on public streets, is progressively stepped back from areas designated Neighbourhoods, and Parks and Open Space, and is stepped back to minimize the appearance from the street. He said the proposed development would have setbacks, stepbacks, and a tower location and orientation limiting shadow impacts on public streets and minimizing its appearance from the street and adjacent Neighbourhood areas. Based on shadow studies undertaken for the Appellants, Mr. Armstrong said the proposed development would maintain adequate access to sunlight and limit shadow impact on adjacent lands. He said the Appellants’ shadow studies demonstrate that shadows created by the tower would move quickly and would have little impact on adjacent lands with the 35 m tower setback from the east and podium stepbacks reducing shadows on adjacent lands. He said the proposed development would provide adequate overall access to sky views when compared to the existing permissible as-of-right height of 15-storeys and reduced setbacks. Mr. Armstrong opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment meets the general intent of the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines.

26Mr. Armstrong opined that the proposed development is appropriate and fits in the existing and planned context and character of the Yonge Street South Village Character Area. He opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan and represents good planning.

27Regarding the specific issues raised by Amskor, Mr. Armstrong opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms to the City’s Official Plan policies, including policy 2.3.1.2 on Healthy Neighbourhoods and policy 3.5.2 (c) and (d) on Mixed Use Areas. He stated that the proposed development uses setbacks, stepbacks and good design to provide transition in scale and density, fits with the existing and proposed character of the area, and is compatible with adjacent Neighbourhoods. He said the proposed massing and the tower location is at the furthest point from the adjacent low-rise built-form ensuring adequate light and privacy for neighbours. He reiterated that overlook and shadowing would not be much greater than with an as-of-right 15-storey development on the subject lands and are appropriate for an urban setting. He said service areas would be on the east side and accessed from the proposed driveway to mitigate visual, noise, and odour impacts on neighbours. He said the Appellants had a traffic study undertaken which found minimal impacts would be caused by the proposed development. He stated that parking would be located underground with a sufficient capacity to reduce impacts on adjacent streets. He said the proposed loading areas would be located indoors and would not cause undue noise impacts. He said the laneway would not have excessive traffic and would not cause undue adverse impacts on the Amskor property. He said the Appellants had a noise study undertaken which found that the primary source of noise in the area is traffic on Yonge Street and the TTC Subway. He said the study did not find that traffic noise generated by the occupants of the proposed development would impact adjacent land uses. He said the proposed development’s amenity areas are designed to minimize impacts on adjacent lands by having the indoor amenity areas located on the ground and ninth floors and the outdoor amenity area located on the south side of the ninth floor facing away from the Neighbourhoods area. He also said the new park created by the proposed development would be workable and secure.

28Amskor raised issues regarding conformity with Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan policy 5.1.1(b) on built-form, policies 5.3.1, 5.3.31, 5.3.33(c) on permitted building types and urban design, and policies 5.4.1 and 5.4.3 on building heights. Mr. Armstrong stated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with these policies. He said the proposed development provides transition in scale and density with context-appropriate design elements with setbacks and stepbacks, which limit shadow and privacy impacts. He said the area’s character consists of various building typologies from low-rise residential to high-rise mixed use. He said the Secondary Plan encourages taller buildings and more density within walking distance of public transit. He said the subject lands are located within walking distance of public transit and located in two Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). He said the subject lands are well-suited for growth. He said that Midtown tall buildings should be designed and located taking into account adjacent sites and should be compatible with the scale and proportion of adjacent streets. In particular, he said the Secondary Plan directs that they should fit and be compatible with the adjacent context in terms of height, scale, and built-form character and they should provide transition. He opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms to the general intent of Secondary Plan policy 5.4.1 and 5.4.3 on building heights. He reiterated that policy 5.4.10 allows for heights taller than those set out in policy 5.4.3 where it is demonstrated that additional shadows are mitigated and the additional height is stepped back, as in the present case. He said new shadows will not significantly impact the use or enjoyment of the Amskor property.

29At the continuation of the hearing on May 29, 2025, Mr. Armstrong provided a review of the proposed revisions to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments as agreed between the Appellants and the City. He stated that the proposed revisions require a minimum of four at-grade retail units and store front bays to be built to retain the character of the area in conformity with Secondary Plan policy 1.3.2. He said the revised proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would include a Holding provision to ensure that elements have been put in place, such as architectural treatment, articulation, and store fronts, in conformity with policy 1.3.2. Mr. Armstrong opined that a suggestion by the Tribunal of the inclusion of a reference to varying facade heights in the language of both the proposed Official Plan Amendment (in policy 7(b)) and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (in policy 6(B)(i)(b)) would be helpful and would conform with the applicable policies.

30Mr. Armstrong opined that the revised proposed language for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments is consistent with the PPS as it helps promote growth, increase housing, and maximize the use of existing infrastructure and public transit. He opined that the revised proposed language for the Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan and the Secondary Plan, particularly in terms of height and density and maintaining the character of the area. He opined that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning.

City’s Evidence and Submissions

31Martin Rendl provided evidence on behalf of the City. He is a land use planner. He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

32Mr. Rendl stated that Yonge Street along the frontage of the subject lands is characterized by a rhythm of narrow retail frontages with frequent pedestrian entrances at grade. He said this rhythm of narrow storefronts is of cultural value reflecting the early 20th century main street commercial character of the area. He stated that the existing frontage of the subject lands has ten properties consisting of 13 retail stores and businesses. He said the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan directs that development must reinforce this local character by providing narrow retail frontages and frequent entrances to active uses at grade. He said this is achieved through the retention of existing heritage buildings and through built-form reflecting the existing character.

33Mr. Rendl stated that Secondary Plan policy 1.3.2 states that new buildings must reinforce the local character of the main street. He stated that the Yonge Street frontage of the subject lands is a commercial main street with an existing character of continuous at-grade narrow frontage retail, service, and institutional uses with office, other commercial and residential uses above. He said this physical character is recognized by Secondary Plan policy 2.5.9 which states that Mixed Use Areas “C” include commercial main streets characterized by continuous at-grade narrow-frontage retail.

34Mr. Rendl stated that Secondary Plan policy 2.6.1 deals with Priority Retail Streets like Yonge Street where development is to include a continuous frontage of at-grade, pedestrian-oriented retail, and service uses. He said policy 2.6.1(b) directs that retail stores are to have frequent entrances and architectural detailing and that store frontages should generally appear to be five to ten metres in width to reflect the historic main street lot and building fabric. He said nine of the ten existing properties on the subject lands range between 4.34 m to 9.7 m in width, which is consistent with this policy. Mr. Rendl stated that the Secondary Plan supports mixed-use developments that reinforce the local character of Yonge Street.

Amskor’s Evidence and Submissions

35Marci and Sayed Korhani provided fact evidence on behalf of Amskor. Ms. Korhani is a Director of Amskor and Mr. Korhani is its President. They gave their evidence together as a panel. They discussed Amskor’s ownership and interest in the property located at 33 Hillsdale Avenue East. They stated that the property is rented to tenants.

36Mr. and Ms. Korhani stated their concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the Amskor property and tenants, particularly in relation to shadow, noise, odour, and loss of privacy. They expressed concerns regarding the impacts arising from the location of the residential units, amenity areas, and windows of the proposed development overlooking the Amskor property, which they stated will intrude on and negatively impact their tenants’ privacy. They stated that the height of the proposed development would exceed the maximum of 25.5 m in the Zoning By-law and would negatively impact the amount of sunlight on the Amskor property. They stated that it would overshadow and block the sky view and create a sense of enclosure for the Amskor property and tenants.

37Mr. and Ms. Korhani stated that the use and enjoyment of the Amskor property would be adversely impacted by increased traffic, noise, and odours, and reduced air quality as a result of the proposed development. They stated that the buffer between the Amskor property and the proposed development is too small. They stated that other recent developments in the area have already increased traffic and reduced local parking availability and that the proposed loading areas, limited underground parking, and laneway abutting the Amskor property would further increase the traffic, noise, and fumes, which would impact the use and enjoyment of the Amskor property. They also stated that the proposed development would physically and functionally isolate the Amskor property from the neighbourhood situating it between the proposed laneway and dedicated parkland. They stated that this would diminish the attractiveness, desirability, and viability of the Amskor property and raise safety and security issues. They said the proposed development does not align with the character of the neighbourhood. They requested that the appeal be dismissed or, alternatively, that conditions be included to reduce the impacts of the proposed development.

38Amskor submits that the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments do not conform with the City’s Official Plan, which speaks to the need to respect the physical character of an area, ensure transition, and maintain adequate sunlight. It submits that City Official Plan policy 4.5.2 requires transition between areas of development in terms of intensity and scale through setbacks and by addressing shadow impacts. It submits that Secondary Plan policy 5.3 restricts the height of development and policy 5.3.3 requires compatibility.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

39The Tribunal is required to determine whether the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments satisfy the statutory tests. They must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, they must be consistent with the PPS, and they must conform to applicable provincial plans. The revised proposed Zoning By-law Amendment must also conform with the City’s Official Plan and the Secondary Plan.

40The Appellants and the City provided comprehensive opinion evidence demonstrating that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments satisfy these tests. The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The proposed development is in an appropriate location for growth and development, supports public transit, is oriented to pedestrians, and promotes built-form that is well-designed and encourages a sense of place. It is located close to public transit, will provide housing and retail uses, and makes use of existing infrastructure.

41The revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are also consistent with the PPS. The proposed development will facilitate intensification of an underutilized site and will optimize the use of existing and planned transit, community facilities, and local services.

42In regard to conformity with the City’s Official Plan, the revised proposed Zoning By-law Amendment facilitates a development that mitigates impacts on adjacent lands and is compatible with their character and context. The proposed development provides for transition from mixed uses to adjacent neighbourhoods to the east and mitigates impacts by means of the proposed laneway along with additional setbacks and stepbacks. The main massing and tower of the proposed development is at least 35 m from the east property line of the subject lands where low-rise development begins.

43In regard to conformity with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, its policy 5 states that built-form should be in an appropriate type, form, and scale for the area. Under policy 5.4.3(k) building heights in the Yonge Street Village Character Area should range between 8 and 15 storeys. Under policy 5.4.10, additional height is allowed where the proposed development limits shadows on public streets, is progressively stepped back from areas designated Neighbourhoods, Parks and Open Space Areas, and is stepped back to minimize its appearance from the street. Based on Mr. Armstrong’s evidence, the Appellants had shadow studies completed that demonstrate that there would only be an incremental difference in shadows between those created by the proposed development and a 15-storey as-of-right development and, as a result of the proposed setbacks and stepbacks, the proposed development would provide for better overall sky views than could be provided by as-of-right development.

44Under Secondary Plan policy 1.3.2, new buildings are to maintain narrow retail frontages, frequent entrances, and active uses at grade. This policy uses mandatory language requiring that new development reinforce the local character of the area. It states (with emphasis added):

1.3.2. The Midtown Villages are historic main streets that will continue to be vital retail and service destinations for residents, workers and visitors. These areas will accommodate a mix of uses in well-proportioned buildings that appropriately conserve heritage resources. Buildings will reinforce the local character of these main streets by providing narrow retail frontages, frequent entrances and active uses at grade. Their design will complement planned public realm improvements, resulting in comfortable, attractive and accessible public spaces that support civic and community life. […]

45Secondary Plan policy 2.6.1 states that development on this section of Yonge Street is to include a continuous frontage of at-grade, pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses, and that the design of retail stores is to have frequent entrances and architectural detailing to reflect the historic main street lot and building fabric. Secondary Plan policy 2.6.1(a) and (b) states (with emphasis added):

2.6.1. Development on Priority Retail Streets identified on Map 21-5 will:

a. include a continuous frontage of at-grade, pedestrian-oriented retail and service uses and/or community service facilities. At-grade residential uses will generally not be permitted except for residential lobbies on mid-block sites;

b. design for retail stores and service uses with frequent entrances and architectural detailing. Store frontages should generally appear to be five to ten metres in width to reflect historic main street lot and building fabric or to achieve the fine-grain rhythm in other areas; […]

46Secondary Plan policy 2.5.9 states that the strip of Yonge Street on which the subject lands are located is to have continuous at-grade narrow retail frontage. Secondary Plan policy 2.5.9 states (with emphasis added):

2.5.9. Mixed Use Areas “C” include commercial main streets characterized by continuous at-grade narrow-frontage retail, service and institutional uses with office, other commercial and residential uses above. A mix of residential, retail and service, office, institutional, entertainment and cultural uses will be permitted. Parks and open spaces are also permitted. New stand-alone retail stores and vehicle-related uses will not be permitted.

47These policies in the Secondary Plan emphasize the need to maintain the local character of Yonge Street on which the subject lands have frontage. This can best be done by preserving the existing facades or replicating them to maintain the vibrancy and feel of this area. As stated in the Secondary Plan, this requires reinforcing the local character of the street by means of narrow retail frontages and active uses at grade. The Tribunal finds that the Appellants’ initially proposed facades for the proposed development’s retail stores on Yonge Street did not reinforce the local character of the street. They would have changed the existing diverse character of generally small independent stores into a monolithic, less diverse line of larger stores.

48The revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments include new language, which requires four at-grade retail units, permits reduced depth in one retail unit to accommodate infrastructure requirements in the proposed building, and places a holding provision on development to ensure that the requirements in Secondary Plan policy 1.3.2 are satisfied. This includes requirements for articulated storefront bays and design that breaks up the building’s ground floor to reflect the rhythm, scale, and character of the existing main street. These requirements would be addressed through the site plan approval process before the Holding symbol can be lifted.

49The revised proposed language for the Official Plan Amendment includes paragraph 7(b), which states (with emphasis added):

b) Development is intended to support the continued evolution of the subject lands in a manner that is consistent with the vision and policies of the Yonge Eglinton Secondary Plan (YESP). In recognition of the importance of reinforcing the local character of these main streets (Yonge Street), the development will provide high-quality architectural treatment along the north and west elevations of the ground floor. This will include the incorporation of clearly articulated storefront bays and design strategies (differentiation of materials, articulation, and heights) and that break up the ground floor massing and height in order to reflect the fine-grained rhythm, scale, and character typical of the village main street. The final design will reflect a well-proportioned ground floor design that appropriately conserves heritage resources and reinforces the local main street character by providing narrow retail frontages, frequent entrances and active uses at grade,

50The revised proposed language for the Zoning By-law Amendment includes paragraph 6(B)(i) and (ii) placing a Holding symbol on development until it is demonstrated that the character of the street is preserved. It states that design must reflect the fine-grain rhythm, scale, and character typical of the village main street. It also requires a site plan approval agreement to ensure that these character-reinforcing elements are used. It states (with emphasis added):

6(B) An amending by-law to remove the holding symbol “(H)” referred to in (A) above may be enacted when the following are fulfilled:

(i) Submission of plans and drawings satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review, sufficient to demonstrate that:

(a) The requirements of Policy 1.3.2 and [Policy #.#.# (i.e. the New SASP)] of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan have been addressed by ensuring high-quality architectural treatment along the west elevations of the ground floor have been incorporated into the design; and

(b) The design incorporates clearly articulated storefront bays and design that breaks up the building’s ground floor massing and heights on the west facade, in order to reflect the fine-grain rhythm, scale, height, and character typical of the village main street; and

(ii) Enter into an agreement under Section 114 of the City of Toronto Act securing the building design elements and treatments as shown in the plans and drawings in (i) above.

51Through the addition of language in the revised proposed Official Plan Amendment reflecting the language in the Secondary Plan requiring narrow retail frontages, frequent entrances, and active at-grade uses, and the inclusion in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment of a Holding provision to ensure that these requirements are met, the Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the intent of the City’s Official Plan and the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan. The Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Amendments carry forward the prescriptive intent in policy 1.3.2 to ensure that the final design reflects a ground floor design that reinforces the existing main street character of the area.

52The Tribunal also finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments appropriately address the rental housing concerns raised by Miso Choi on behalf of the Hillsdale-Manor Tenants’ Association, noting that all 33 existing residential rental units will be replaced in the proposed development with similar rental unit types and sizes.

53The Tribunal also finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments appropriately address the concerns raised by Jeff Latto on behalf of the South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association (SEDRA). The Tribunal finds that Mr. Latto’s concerns relating to whether the proposed development would fit in with the existing fabric and character of Yonge Street and regarding the proposed development’s height have been addressed by the Appellant in the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments.

54Amskor’s issues relate to whether the proposed development conforms with the City’s Official Plan’s policies relating to Healthy Neighbourhoods and Mixed Use Areas and the Secondary Plan’s policies on built-form, permitted building types and urban design standards, and building heights.

55Regarding Neighbourhoods, City Official Plan policy 4.1.5 states that development in Neighbourhoods must respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the area. The proposed tower and larger massing of the main building are on lands designated as Mixed Use Area. They are not located in the Neighbourhoods designation. Based on the evidence regarding the location, layout, height, and massing of the proposed development, the Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with these policies.

56City Official Plan policy 2.3.1.3 states that development in Mixed Use Areas that are adjacent to Neighbourhoods must be compatible, provide a gradual transition of scale and density, maintain adequate light and privacy for residents in the Neighbourhoods designation, orient and screen lighting and amenity areas so as to minimize impacts, locate and screen access to underground parking, and address traffic and parking impacts. Based on the opinion evidence before the Tribunal, these issues have been addressed in the proposed development. The proposed use of setbacks, stepbacks, and design details will provide transition in scale and density and will ensure that the proposed development fits with the existing and proposed character of the area and is compatible with the adjacent Neighbourhood area. As noted above, the proposed massing and the tower location is at the furthest point from the Neighbourhood area to ensure adequate light and privacy for nearby residents. The Appellants have had shadow, traffic, and noise studies undertaken, which each demonstrate that there will not be undue adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or residents. It has also been demonstrated that the proposed laneway, loading areas, and access to underground parking will not cause undue adverse impacts. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with these policies.

57Regarding Mixed Use Areas, Official Plan policy 4.5.2(c) states that development will locate and mass new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale by providing appropriate setbacks and/or a stepping down of heights towards adjacent Neighbourhood areas. Official Plan policy 4.5.2(d) states that development in Mixed Use Areas will locate and mass new buildings so as to adequately limit shadow impacts on adjacent Neighbourhood areas. As discussed above, the proposed development will use setbacks, stepbacks, and design details to provide transition in scale and density and will mitigate shadow impacts. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with these policies.

58Regarding built-form, Secondary Plan policy 5.1.1(b) states that growth and intensification will be accommodated in a variety of building types and scales suitable and appropriate to the existing and planned context of the character areas while enhancing the liveability of a building’s surroundings and the spaces within the building. Development within the Secondary Plan area is to generally reflect applicable built-form principles including allowing for compatible low-rise development in nearby Neighbourhoods areas and providing transition to them through context-appropriate approaches that adequately limit shadow and privacy impacts. Again, as discussed above, the proposed development will use setbacks, stepbacks, and design details to provide transition in scale and density and will mitigate impacts. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will fit harmoniously in the area. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with this policy.

59Regarding permitted building types and urban design standards, Secondary Plan policy 5.3.1 states that development will consist of a variety of building types that will contribute to a compact, transit-supportive built-form, a diversity of building types and housing forms, the skyline of Midtown, the desired character of particular areas, and a comfortable public realm. Secondary Plan policy 5.3.31 states that the siting and placement of tall buildings will take into account, among other things, adjacent sites and provide adequate access to sunlight and sky views. Secondary Plan policy 5.3.33(c) and (g) addresses compatibility of a podium to the street. It states that podiums must be designed to generally be compatible with the height, scale, and built-form character of the existing and planned context and provide a transition in scale for the base building height down to adjacent lower-scale planned contexts. Again, as discussed above, the proposed development will use setbacks, stepbacks, and design details to provide transition in scale and density, will mitigate shadow impacts, and will provide for reasonable sky views. Also, as discussed above, the height, scale, and built-form character of the proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding existing and planned context. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with these policies.

60Regarding the appropriate height of the proposed development, Secondary Plan policies 5.4.1 and 5.4.3 set out restrictions. Policy 5.4.3(k) states that building heights in the Yonge Street Village Character Area should range between 8 and 15 storeys, but, under policy 5.4.10, additional height is allowed where the proposed development limits shadows on public streets and lands. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, these requirements have been satisfied. The Tribunal agrees that it is necessary to consider the impacts on neighbours and the importance of maintaining adequate sunlight. These are all addressed in the requirements under the Official Plan, which, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, have been satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

61Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the PPS and that the revised proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan and the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and to the decision of the municipality refusing the proposed amendments along with the information that the City Council had before it when considering the matters. The Tribunal finds that the revised proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning.

INTERIM ORDER

62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal by CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited (the “Applicant”) is allowed, in part, and the draft Official Plan Amendment (the “Draft OPA”) as set attached to this Order and Decision as Attachment 1 and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment (the “Draft ZBA”) as set attached to this Order and Decision as Attachment 2 for the lands municipally known in the City of Toronto (the “City”) as 2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9-11, 21, 31, 35 and part of 37 Hillsdale Avenue, and 12-18 and part of 20 Manor Road East (the “Lands”), are approved in principle.

2. The Final Order of the Tribunal shall be withheld until the Tribunal is in receipt of written confirmation from the City that the following conditions have been satisfied:

a. the form and content of the Draft OPA and the Draft ZBA, with any revisions, if directed, are satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor;

b. City Council has approved Rental Housing Demolition Application 23 201074 STE 12 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of the existing rental dwelling units, and the owner has entered into, and registered on title to the Lands, an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 securing the replacement of the existing rental dwelling units and all other rental housing related matters, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

c. the owner has provided a revised Functional Servicing Report and a revised Stormwater Management Report, such reports to be reviewed to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and has made satisfactory arrangements for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the Functional Servicing Report and the Stormwater Management Report, should it be determined that improvements to such infrastructure are required to support this development;

d. the owner has provided a withdrawal letter respecting their appeal of By-law 595-2022 (Midtown Village Character Area) in Ontario Land Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-004174;

e. the owner shall provide 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 prepared by ERA Architects dated October 4, 2024, for the property at 2111 Yonge Street, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and,

f. the owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 2111 Yonge Street, substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings dated October 2, 2024, prepared by Turner Fleischer on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by ERA Architects dated October 4, 2024, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, subject to and in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan required in e. above, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution and registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

3. The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event any matter or matters should arise in connection with the implementation of this Interim Order.

63THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, in all other aspects, the appeals are dismissed.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

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