Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
January 27, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000453
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit development of a 9-storey building comprised of 40 residential units with a 4-storey podium base
Reference Number:
23 119635 NNY 15 OZ
Property Address:
49-59 Lawrence Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000453
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000453
OLT Case Name:
Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit development of a 9-storey building comprised of 40 residential units with a 4-storey podium base
Reference Number:
23 119635 NNY 15 OZ
Property Address:
49-59 Lawrence Avenue
Municipality/UT:
Toronto
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000454
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-000453
Heard:
January 20, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Lawrence Parktown Residences Inc. (“Applicant”)
Raj Kehar
City of Toronto
Lauren Pinder
Jyoti Zuidema
Lawrence Park Ratepayers’ Association
William Roberts
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS ON January 20, 2025 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Interim Order
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal arises following a non-decision by the City of Toronto (“City”) within the statutory timeframe regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of an 11-storey building comprised of 60 residential units, with a four-storey podium base and two levels of underground parking, on lands known municipally as 49-59 Lawrence Avenue East (“Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property is 0.139 hectares in size, rectangular in shape, and is located east of Yonge Street, on the south side of Lawrence Avenue and the west side of Weybourne Crescent. It is comprised of three lots, which currently include two single-detached dwellings and a vacant lot.
3Since the initial submission, the development proposal has been refined through ongoing consultations with the City and the Lawrence Park Ratepayers’ Association. These discussions have contributed to a revised plan that has now been presented to the Tribunal, featuring a 10-storey, mid-rise building with 50 residential units. The chart below outlines the main changes made to the original proposal.
Original Design (Oct. 6, 2023)
Revised (Oct. 28, 2024)
Proposed Development (Oct. 29, 2024)
Number of Units
40
60
50
Building Height
31.92 m (35.215 m mech. pent.)
38.78 m (42.16 m mech. pent.)
35.02 m (38.02 m mech. pent.)
Building Storeys
9
11
10
Setbacks (Ground Floor)
3 m (north),
7.5 m (south),
1.2 m (west),
3 m (east)
0.6 m (north),
6.59 m (south),
0 m (west),
0.6 m (east)
1.5 m - 3 m (north), 7.0 m (south),
5.5 m (west),
1.5 m - 3 m (east)
Gross Floor Area
5,755 sq.m.
8,501 sq.m.
6,180 sq.m.
Floor Space Area
4.13
6.11
4.44
4In addition to the changes outlined in the chart above, the proposal includes several key revisions: the upper floor setbacks have been adjusted; the driveway design has been revised to meet applicable technical standards; the garage driveway and ramp are to be partially enclosed; the outdoor amenity space has been relocated to the second storey; projecting balconies on the third to fifth storeys within the 3 metres (“m”) set back at Lawrence and Weyburn have been removed; and a minimum of 200 square metres (“sq m”) of amenity space will be provided, including at least 100 sq m of indoor amenities space.
5Disposition of the matter has come before the Tribunal as a settlement. The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, and considered the following materials and submissions:
i. The uncontested opinion evidence of Sean Galbraith, a Registered Professional Planner and a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, contained in his comprehensive affidavit, sworn January 15, 2025 (marked as Exhibit 1);
ii. The Settlement Plans by Bortolotto, dated October 29, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 2);
iii. Participant Statements filed with the Tribunal in the names of:
Participant 1: John Detwiler;
Participant 2: Vic Furgiuele; and
Participant 3: Kavi Khandelwa.
iv. The Parties’ oral/written submissions in support of the settlement;
v. The draft Official Plan Amendment (marked as Exhibit 3);
vi. The draft Zoning By-law Amendment (marked as Exhibit 4); and
vii. The City of Toronto Council Resolution, dated November 13 and 14, 2024 (marked as Exhibit 5).
6Based on the Heritage Impact Statement for the original applications, Mr. Galbraith concluded that the proposed development raises no concerns with respect to its proximity to the adjacent heritage-designated garage. The site plan will mitigate any potential construction impacts, and the Applicant will be required to submit a revised Heritage Impact Assessment. An increased setback of 5.5 m to the heritage property, along with the relocation of the driveway for the proposed development, provides an additional buffer between the properties. Concerns regarding privacy shadowing and the building’s fit and scale were raised by one Participant, specifically regarding shadowing on their property. However, there are no south-facing balconies overlooking the street, and the setbacks on both the lower and upper floors are designed to ensure privacy. A Sun and Shadow Study conducted for the original Application showed minimal shadowing in the northeast corner of the front yard, which will be further reduced with the increased setbacks. It was the expert opinion of Mr. Galbraith that all concerns raised, including those related to shadowing, have been adequately addressed in the revised proposal.
Decision and INTERIM order
7The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn affidavit evidence of Mr. Galbraith reflects revisions to the applications before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties.
8The Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. Galbraith as presented in his affidavit and similarly finds that the subject applications, as revised, have regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conforms to the City Official Plan, and otherwise reflects principles of good land use planning.
9THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
The appeals for the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation and satisfaction of those prerequisite matters identified in subparagraph 2. below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, to this interim order, are hereby approved in principle.
The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation from the City of Toronto of the following:
a. The final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review;
b. The submission of a Computational Fluid Dynamics Phase 2 Pedestrian Level Wind Study as per the City of Toronto Terms of Reference, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, provided that the City agrees that the results of this study will not result in any further modifications to the built form of the building;
c. Satisfactorily addressing the Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum, dated February 15, 2024, or as may be updated, including a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report and Hydrogeological Report accompanied by a coordinated Hydrological Review Summary Form and Servicing Report Groundwater Summary, all to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
d. Submission of a revised Transportation Impact Study, including acceptable Travel Demand Management, addressing outstanding issues in the Transportation Services memo, dated February 15, 2024, or as may be updated in response to further submissions filed by the Client, all to the satisfaction of Executive Director, Development Review and that such matters arising from such Plan be secured as required;
e. Provide justification for locating access from Lawrence Avenue East and the proposed Type C loading space, all to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
f. Provide a pick-up/drop-off study to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;
g. Submission of a revised Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and that matters arising from such study be secured if required;
h. Provide a sun shadow study, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, provided the City agrees the results of this study will not result in any further modifications to the built form of the building; and
i. Provide a soil volume plan and section details for each soil area demonstrating that the proposal meets the minimum soil volumes in accordance with the Toronto Green Standard, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation.
The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment, the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in subparagraph 2. above, by Friday, March 21, 2025, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment for the Tribunal’s approval and issuance of its Final Order.
The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
“J. Innis”
j. inniS
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
ATTACHMENT 2