Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 23, 2025 CASE NO.: OLT-23-000651

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

Applicant/Appellant: Rox General Partners Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of 33 residential units in a 12-storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 22 137060 STE 11 OZ Property Address: 219-221 Roxton Road Municipality: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000651 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000651 OLT Case Name: Rox General Partners Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Rox General Partners Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 33 residential units in a 12-storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 22 137060 STE 11 OZ Property Address: 219-221 Roxton Road Municipality: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000652 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000651

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

Applicant/Appellant: Rox General Partners Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the development of 33 residential units in a 12-storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 22 137059 STE 11 SA Property Address: 219- 221 Roxton Road Municipality: Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000653 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000651

BEFORE: C. HARDY VICE CHAIR Wednesday, the 23rd day of July, 2025

THESE MATTERS involving appeals under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, and subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. as amended, regarding the refusal by the City of Toronto (“City”) to render a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Site Plan approval to facilitate the redevelopment of land municipally known as 219-221 Roxton Road, in the City of Toronto (“Subject Lands”);

AND THESE MATTERS having come before the Tribunal on September 12, 2023, January 9, 2024, April 26, 2024 and July 26, 2024 for Case Management Conferences (“CMC”) wherein a number of procedural matters were established, including the granting of Participant status to 11 individuals being Julie Fass, Archie Hughes, Patrick Feng, Susan Antler, Michael Hoffman, Fang (Clair) Mu, Belisa Paulo, Guy Allen, Greg Baxter, Anthony Muhitch and Carlos Monteiro;

AND THESE MATTERS having been set down for a four-day Merit Hearing at the second CMC, subsequent to which the Hearing dates were vacated on account of a tentative settlement reached between the Parties;

AND THESE MATTERS having come before the Tribunal for a Written Hearing to consider the settlement proposal proffered on consent of the Parties on Monday, June 30, 2025;

AND THE TRIBUNAL receiving the request by the Parties to hold the Site Plan application appeal pursuant subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. as amended, in abeyance pending the issuance of a Final Order by the Tribunal with respect to the OPA and ZBA;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received and considered the written Participant Statements of Julie Fass, Archie Hughes, Patrick Feng, Susan Antler, Michael Hoffman, Fang (Clair) Mu, Belisa Paulo, Guy Allen, Greg Baxter, Anthony Muhitch and Carlos Monteiro, in rendering its decision;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received and considered the written materials filed on consent of the Parties, including the Affidavit and Supplementary Affidavit and exhibits sworn and dated April 11, 2025 and July 16, 2025, respectively, of Jim Kotsopoulos a Registered Professional Planner and member of the Canadian Institute of Planners;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having accepted and qualified Jim Kotsopoulos’ evidence as expert opinion in the area of land use planning for the purposes of this Written Hearing;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having reviewed and considered the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of Jim Kotsopoulos on the revised draft ZBA and OPA and the nature and scope of the proposed Settlement, including (but not limited to):

• The proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Property with: a. A reduced streetwall height along College Street and Roxton Road; b. A reduced size of the ground floor commercial space to accommodate small-scale retail; c. Incorporation of bike racks to accommodate larger bikes (ie cargo bikes); d. The sole heating source is not facilitated through the use of gas; e. New street trees; and f. Installation of an on-street non-exclusive loading zone on the west side of Roxton Road, which will lead to the loss of two existing Green P spaces, and in turn, should be relocated elsewhere in the area (location and feasibility to be determined). The cost of facilitating this site plan revision is anticipated to be determined at the site plan stage and to be paid for by the Appellant.
• A request to amend the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) to amend the designation of Neighbourhoods to Mixed-Use Areas for the property of 219 Roxton Road;
• A request to amend Article 900.11.10 Exception Number XXX so that it reads: (XX) Exception CR 3.0 (c.1O;r2.5) SS2 (x2437) (xXXX) of the City’s Zoning By-Law No. 569-2013, as amended (“ZBL”) and to add site-specific amendments for: a. A maximum Floor Space Index of 5.72 (o.3 C, 5.42 R); b. To permit a height of 30.2 metres (“m”); c. To permit a rear yard setback of 0.0 m; d. To permit the penetration of the 45-degree angular plane on the rear lot line; and e. To permit 0 vehicular parking spaces.
• The property at 219 Roxton Road is currently zoned “Residential (R d0.6 x 729)” and the property at 221 Roxton Road is currently zoned “Commercial residential (CR 3.0 c1.0;r2.5 SS2 x2437)”. The CR Zone permits a range of commercial uses including offices, personal service shops, retail stores, eating establishments and Residential uses such as dwelling units.
• The Subject Lands being suitable for the proposed redevelopment and intensification for reasons that include its location in an established mixed-use area on the south side of an Avenue (College Street);
• The location of the proposed development being north of the lower density housing forms to the south, thereby mitigating any shadow cast to that area;
• The proposed development offering a range of unit types, including 8 units (32%) being purpose-built family-sized units; and
• The ability for the proposal to function without any parking spaces given the proximity to transit, pedestrian connectivity and dedicated bicycle lanes, full array of amenities and services in the immediate area, and the inclusion of bicycle parking spaces.

AND THE TRIBUNAL, having accepted the uncontested evidence of Jim Kotsopoulos finds that the proposed Settlement and revised instruments giving effect thereto:

• have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act, through promoting a height and density of development that optimizes the use of existing servicing capacity and its location in close proximity to public and active transit networks. The Subject Property is appropriate for intensification given existing servicing capacity, lot size, transit access, access to goods, services and institutions and will enhance the public realm while addressing shortages in the housing market;
• are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, by supporting intensification on a lot that is well served by municipal infrastructure including servicing, transit and community facilities. Further, the proposed development contributes to the range and mix of housing types, without causing any environmental or public health and safety issues;
• are in conformity with and meet the general intent of the overarching policies within the City of Toronto’s Official Plan through the Mixed Use Areas policies which promote the proposed type of higher-density, transit supportive development. The Subject Property is well situated to function without the need for parking spaces given the wide range of available transit in the immediate area including street cars which connect to the subway system and several bus lines and further, has access to a full range of amenities and services in the surrounding area;
• will permit redevelopment of the Subject Property in accordance with local and Regional official plans by amending the zoning on 219 Roxton Road to Commercial Residential to match the zoning on 221 Roxton Road and provide site specific standards for the zone;
• represent good planning and are in the public interest by implementing a high-quality transit-oriented mixed-use proposal that would result in the introduction of additional housing, including diversifying the range and mix of housing types, within the area, as well as a providing rejuvenation and vitality to an enhanced street-life on Roxton Road with both ground retail and residential units.

NOW THEREFORE:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals pursuant to subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraphs (i) to (vi) below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment set out in Attachments 1 and 2 respectively to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. as amended, be held in abeyance.

AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the issuance of its Final Order regarding the OPA and ZBA shall be withheld contingent upon confirmation from the City Solicitor, of satisfaction of the following pre-requisite matters:

(i) The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Official Plan Amendment in a final form and content, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Community Planning;

(ii) The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-Law Amendment in a final form and content, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Community Planning;

(iii) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and 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 ZBA;

(iv) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant has made satisfactory arrangements with the City and has entered into the appropriate agreement(s) for the design and construction of any improvements to municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades and/or road improvements are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports and Traffic Impact Study accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(v) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant has submitted a revised Landscape Plan (with a public utility plan underlay in an updated soil volume plan), to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; and

(vi) The Tribunal is advised that the Appellant has secured an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan in accordance with Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.12 for the tenants of the existing rental dwelling units proposed to be demolished, addressing financial compensation and other assistance to lessen hardship, and the Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and it shall be implemented prior to the issuance of Notice of Approval Conditions for Site Plan Control approval.

AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Counsel for the Appellant is to advise the Tribunal within 120 days of the issuance of this Order as to the Status of the final instruments, should they not yet be finalized.

AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft Zoning By-Law Amendment and the final draft Official Plan Amendment and the issuance of the final Order.

AND THE TRIBUNAL may be spoken to in the event of any issue arising in the implementation of this Order.

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: 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

Authority: Toronto Community Council Item ______

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. ~2024

To adopt Amendment No. ~ to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally in the year 2024 as 219 and 221 Roxton Road

Whereas authority is given to Council under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and

Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS:

1. The attached Amendment No. ~ to the Official Plan is adopted.

ENACTED AND PASSED this __day of ___________, 2024.

OLIVIA CHOW John Elvidge Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2024 AS 219 and 221 Roxton Road

The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is amended as follows:

1. Map 18, Land Use Plan is amended by re-designating the lands municipally known as 219 Roxton Road from Neighbourhoods to Mixed-Use Areas, as shown on the attached Schedule

SCHEDULE 1

ATTACHMENT 2

Authority: Toronto and East York Community Council Item [-], as adopted by City of Toronto Council on , 20

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW [Clerks to insert By-law number]

To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2024 as 219 Roxton Road and 221 Roxton Road, Toronto, Ontario.

Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and

Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act, as amended; and

The Council of the City of Toronto enacts:

1. The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.

2. The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, Chapter 800 Definitions.

3. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the zone label on the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10 respecting the lands outlined by heavy black lines from a zone label of R (d0.6 x 729) and CR 3.0 (c1.0; r2.5) SS2 (x2437) to a zone label of CR 3.0(c1.0; r2.5) SS2 (xXXX) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the zone label on the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10, and is further amended by amending Article 900.11.10 Exception Number [Zoning Section Staff to assign the exception number] so that it reads:

(XX) Exception CR 3.0(c1.0; r2.5) SS2 (xXXX)

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site-Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) On lands municipally known as 219 Roxton Road and 221 Roxton Road, if the requirements of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number] are complied with, a building or structure may be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (H) below;

(B) Despite regulations [40.5.40.10(3) to (8)] and (D), the following equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted maximum height shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law Number]: i. A parapet, roof drainage, thermal insulation or roof ballast, and roof construction assembly elements, located at each of the roof levels of the building, provided the maximum vertical distance of any such structure does not exceed 2.0 metres; ii. Safety railings and fences at each of the roof levels of the building, provided the maximum vertical dimension of any such structure does not exceed 2.0 metres, and having a maximum combined vertical dimension above of 3.0 metres above the height of each roof level of the building; iii. Equipment used for the functional operation of the building, including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, as well as enclosed stairwells, roof access, maintenance equipment storage, elevator shafts, chimneys, and vents, by a maximum of 4.7 metres; iv. Structures that enclose, screen, or cover the equipment, structures and pars of a building listed in (i) above, including a mechanical penthouse, by a maximum of 4.7 metres; v. Architectural features, parapets, and elements and structures associated with a green roof, by a maximum of 4.0 metres; vi. Building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 4.7 metres; vii. Planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 4.0 metres; viii. Antennae, flagpoles and satellite dishes, by a maximum of 4.0 metres; and ix. Trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 4.0 metres. x. The building elements and structures listed in (i) to (ix) above may not exceed the maximum building height of 30.2 metres.

(C) Despite regulation 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 103.88 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;

(D) Despite regulation 40.10.40.10 (2) the maximum permitted height of a building or structure is the number in metres following the letters “HT” as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law Number];.

(E) Despite regulation 40.10.40.70 (2), the required minimum building setbacks are shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number];

(F) Despite regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures is 1715.0 square metres, of which: (i) The permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 1625.0 square metres; (ii) The required minimum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 86 square metres;

(G) Despite regulation 40.10.40.50(1)(A) at least 1.36 square metres for each dwelling unit is indoor amenity space.

(H) Despite regulation 970.10.1 (1) no vehicular parking spaces will be provided.

(I) Despite regulation 230.5.1.10(4)(A), the required minimum dimension of a bicycle parking space are: (i) length of 1.8 metres (ii) width of 0.6 metres (iii) vertical clearance of 1.9 metres

(J) Despite regulation 230.5.1.(4)(C), the required minimum vertical clearance for a stacked bicycle parking space is 1.9 metres

(K) Despite regulation 40.10.40.60(1), the required permitted encroachments for decks, porches and balconies must not project more than 1.87 metres from the main wall to which it is attached.

(L) Despite regulation 40.10.50.10(3), a strip of land used for soft landscaping along the part of the lot line abutting the Residential Zone category is not required.

(M) Desptire regulation 40.10.10.10(5), the minimum required height of the first storey is 4.0 metres.

5. Despite any severance, partition or division of the lands, the provisions of this By-law shall apply as if no severance, partition or division occurred.

Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File OLT-23-000651

Diagram 1 – Zoning By-law Amendment Boundary Diagram 2 – Zoning By-law Amendment Zone Category Diagram 3 – Zoning By-law Amendment Height Amendment