Gabriele Homes Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2026 CanLII 44813

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 04, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001142

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

Applicant and Appellant: Gabriele Homes Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of an 11-storey mixed-use building. Reference Number: 15 171595 STE 32 OZ Property Address: 847-855 Kingston Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001142 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001142 OLT Case Name: Gabriele Homes Ltd. 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: Gabriele Homes Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of an 11-storey mixed-use building. Reference Number: 15 171595 STE 32 OZ Property Address: 847-855 Kingston Road Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001143 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001142 OLT Case Name: Gabriele Homes Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: February 03, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Gabriele Homes Ltd. Counsel Mark Flowers Alexia Ivo (student at law)

Parties City of Toronto Counsel Jessica Braun

Parties Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) Counsel Matthew Rutledge

DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is with respect to the appeals filed by Gabriele Homes Ltd. under sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) to seek approval for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of an 11-storey mixed-use building.

2The appeals arise from the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to render a decision within the prescribed statutory timeframes.

3The “subject lands” are municipally known as 847–855 Kingston Road in the City and are located at the southwest corner of Kingston Road and Beech Avenue. The site has an approximate area of 0.15 hectares and is currently developed with a one-storey detached dwelling, a 1.5-storey medical office building, and a one-storey commercial structure.

4The surrounding area is characterized by low-rise residential and commercial uses, with a concentration of mid-rise residential buildings located to the east along Kingston Road, contributing to a varied built form context. The subject lands are designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan and are zoned “R (d1.0)(x7)” under Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and “R4 Z1” pursuant to former Zoning By-law No. 438-86.

5The proposed development requires an Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the lands to Mixed Use Areas, as the current designation limits building heights to a maximum of four storeys. A Zoning By-law Amendment is also proposed to rezone the site to “Commercial Residential (CR)” with site-specific standards to permit increased height, density, and related zoning relief.

6The Tribunal heard that the Parties confirmed on consent that a settlement had been reached and was presented for the consideration of the Tribunal (“Settlement Proposal”).

SETTLEMENT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY OPINION

7The Tribunal was presented with the witness statement of Courtney Heron-Monk, a professional Land Use Planner and Senior Associate with Bousfields, in support of the settlement.

8The Settlement Proposal consists of a 13-storey mixed-use development featuring a six-storey base, a rooftop amenity level, and an overall building height of 46.7 metres (“m”), inclusive of the mechanical penthouse. The project provides approximately 8,555 square metres (“m²”) of gross floor area, with about 8,177 m² dedicated to residential uses and 378 m² allocated to non-residential space. The proposed development achieves a site density of 5.47 FSI, based on the gross site area of 1,561 m², and 7.47 FSI, based on the net site area of 1,145 m².

9The Tribunal was offered a statistical comparison of the Original Proposal (June 2015), the December 2022 Resubmission (December 2022) and the Settlement Proposal (October 2025), as provided below in Table 1.

Table 1

Feature	June 2015	December 2022	Settlement Proposal
Properties	847, 849, 851 and 853 Kingston Road	847, 849, 851, 853 and 855 Kingston Road	847, 849, 851, 853 and 855 Kingston Road
Site Area Gross Site Area Ravine Lands Net Development Area	1,272 sq. m. No conveyance	1,561 sq. m. No conveyance	1,561.3 sq. m. 416 sq. m. 1,145 sq. m.
Building Height Storeys Top of Roof (metres) Top of MPH (metres)	7 storeys (incl. MPH) 24.1 20.7	11 storeys (incl. MPH) 33.2 38.2	13 storeys (incl. MPH) 41.1 46.7
Gross Floor Area Residential GFA Retail GFA Total Gross Floor Area	4,296.71 sq.m 124.22 sq.m 4,420.93 sq.m	6,823 sq. m 371 sq. m 7,195 sq. m	8,176.91 sq. m 378.06 sq. m 8,554.96 sq. m
Density	3.47 FSI (based on gross site area)	4.6 FSI (based on gross site area)	5.47 FSI (based on gross site area) 7.47 FSI (based on net site area)
Dwelling Units Studio One-bedroom Two-bedroom Three-bedroom Total Units	0 (0%) 8 (28%) 19 (65%) 2 (7%) 29	2 (2%) 56 (57%) 31 (31%) 10 (10%) 99	6 (5%) 64 (56%) 33 (29%) 11 (10%) 114
Amenity Space Indoor Amenity Space Outdoor Amenity Space Total Amenity Space	54.37 sq. m (1.87/unit) 110.40 sq (3.80/unit) 164.77 sq. m (5.68/unit)	171.0 sq. m (1.72/unit) 104.5 sq. m (1.05/unit) 275.5 sq. m (2.77/unit)	210.57 sq. m (1.84/unit) 131.91 sq. m (1.15/unit)* 342.48 sq. m (3.0/unit) *does not include 3m maintenance buffer
Vehicular Parking Residential Occupant Residential Visitor Non-residential Total Vehicle Parking	30 spaces 1 space 0 spaces 31 spaces	26 spaces 6 spaces 0 spaces 32 spaces	28 spaces 7 spaces 0 spaces 35 spaces
Bicycle Parking Residential "Long-Term" Residential "Short-Term" Commercial "Long-Term" Commercial "Short-Term" Total Bicycle Parking	26 spaces 3 spaces 3 spaces 2 spaces 34 spaces	89 spaces 20 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces 109 spaces	85 spaces 24 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces 109 spaces
Loading	N/A	1 Type "G" space	1 Type "G" space

Summary of the Settlement Proposal Revisions

10The Settlement Proposal revises the December 2022 resubmission with several key improvements related to setbacks, environmental protection, public realm, built form, and project scale:

• Expanded Setbacks & Environmental Protection
  • Increased setbacks from the Lake Toe of Slope Stability Crest (“LTSSC”) to better address erosion risks and ecological buffering:
    • South setback increased from 6.0 m to 10.0 m.
    • West setback increased to 6.0 m (with a limited 3.8 m exception at the northwest corner), replacing the prior 0 m setback.
    • A new 3.0 m building maintenance buffer adjacent to ravine lands.
    • Southeast corner setback increased from 4.0 m to 5.0 m near Glen Stewart Park access.
  • Approximately 416 m² of land (about 26% of the site) below the LTSSC will be re-naturalized and conveyed to the City at no cost.
• Enhanced Public Realm
  • Ground-floor setbacks increased along Kingston Road to provide a consistent 5.2 m sidewalk zone, improving pedestrian space and streetscape quality.
• Building Massing and Height
  • Building height increased from 11 to 13 storeys (to 46.7 m including mechanical penthouse), including a new mezzanine level.
  • Introduction of a 6-storey base building that steps back above to reduce visual impact and reinforce Kingston Road’s mainstreet character.
  • Upper storeys (Levels 7–12) and Level 13 are progressively stepped back, especially adjacent to the park and ravine, to reduce massing impacts.
  • Level 13 contains amenity space and mechanical elements, with mechanical areas oriented away from the ravine.
• Increased Density and Housing Yield
  • Gross floor area increased from ~7,195 m² to ~8,555 m².
  • Density increased from 4.6 FSI to 5.47 FSI.
  • Residential units increased from 99 to 114, including:
    • 10% three-bedroom units.
    • ~29% two-bedroom units.
• Amenity Space
  • Total amenity space of 342.48 m²:
    • 210.57 m² indoor.
    • 131.91 m² outdoor.
  • Equivalent to 3.0 m² per unit.
• Retail, Access, and Parking
  • Approximately 416 m² of retail/commercial GFA at grade, with additional space on the mezzanine.
  • Retail located at Kingston Road and Beech Avenue with views toward the ravine and park.
  • Ground floor also includes residential lobby, services, loading, and access to a two-level underground parking garage (with bicycle parking on Level 2).
  • Mezzanine level features double-height retail and loading areas, with residential uses above.

11The Settlement Proposal increases building height and density while delivering improved setbacks, environmental protection, public realm enhancements, and a more refined massing strategy, particularly adjacent to the ravine and park.

FINDINGS

12On the strength of the uncontradicted expert opinion evidence of Ms. Heron-Monk and upon a review of the applicable provisions of the Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed Settlement is aligned with the applicable policy framework, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

13The Tribunal finds the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate and efficient use of the subject lands and establishes a built form that is well integrated with the existing and planned context. It provides adequate separation and buffering to protect and enhance the Glen Stewart Ravine, while ensuring a sensitive transition to adjacent low-rise neighbourhoods.

14The proposal supports key provincial and city policy objectives by promoting mixed-use intensification within a built-up area that is well served by existing and planned municipal infrastructure, including transit. The scale and density are appropriate given the site’s location along the Kingston Road corridor and its surrounding mix of uses.

15The proposed combination of residential and retail/commercial uses, together with enhanced public realm and environmental protection measures, will support the ongoing revitalization of Kingston Road and contribute to a more vibrant, complete, and transit-supportive community.

16The development will assist the City in achieving its housing targets by delivering additional housing supply, including a family-oriented unit mix consistent with the Growing Up Guidelines, in a transit-accessible location.

17The building is appropriately scaled and carefully massed to respond to surrounding mid-rise development, adjacent neighbourhoods, and the ravine lands. The proposal has addressed comments from City staff, other City divisions, and the TRCA, particularly with respect to built form, massing, natural heritage and hazards, public realm, and transportation.

18The Tribunal further agrees that the Settlement Proposal has regard for Provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Official Plan subject to the proposed Official Plan Amendment, and has regard to applicable urban design guidelines. Overall, the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment achieve a balanced implementation of planning policy and represent good planning.

19The Tribunal commends the Parties in working collaboratively and engaging in productive discussions to reach a settlement in these proceedings.

INTERIM ORDER

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in Attachment 1. The Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment, set out respectively at Attachments 2 and 3 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

21The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, that all pre-requisite matters are satisfied.

22The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments and the issuance of the Final Order.

23If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, September 25th, 2026, the Applicant, Gabriele Homes Ltd., and the City of Toronto 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 draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

24The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional time lines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument(s), the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI 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

The Tribunal withholds its final Order until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

(a) the final form and content of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor, in consultation with other appropriate divisions;

(b) the Owner has, at its sole cost and expense:

(i) provided a revised Natural Heritage Impact Study, including describing and illustrating necessary buffers/setbacks and proposed enhancement/re-naturalization with a dense mix of native, non-invasive trees and shrubs, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(ii) provided a Ravine Stewardship Plan for the setback, buffer and feature areas located within the property boundary and/or within the lands to be conveyed into public ownership, including illustrating the proposed enhancement/re-naturalization with a dense mix of native, non-invasive trees and shrubs, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(iii) provided a revised Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(iv) provided a revised Public Utility Plan, including Quality Level A data to determine and confirm the location of utilities and tree planting to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry;

(v) provided a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including a Wind Tunnel Study, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(vi) provided a revised Toronto Green Standard Checklist and Statistics, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(vii) provided a revised Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry;

(viii) submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and a revised Hydrogeological Review, (“Engineering Reports”) to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water, who will, in the course of his review of the matter, give consideration to the sensitivity of the creek in the Glen Stewart Ravine;

(ix) secured the design and financial securities in respect of any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Engineering Reports accepted by the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review and the General Manager, Toronto Water, unless otherwise secured through a holding provision in the by-law;

(x) ensured that implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-law or that any required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-law to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") symbol regarding any new municipal servicing infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure, as may be required;

(xi) addressed all outstanding issues raised by Development Engineering in the memo dated March 17, 2023, as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review, Development Review;

(xii) provided a Methane Gas Study and Report to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services; and

(xiii) registered or authorized the City to register a section 118 restriction, pursuant to section 118 of the Land Titles Act, on title to the subject lands, to be limited to a restriction on the transfer of the subject lands, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Executive Director, Environment, Climate and Forestry and the General Manager, Parks and Recreation.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3