Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
418067 ONTARIO LIMITED (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 300
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: January 29, 2025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): 418067 ONTARIO LIMITED
Applicant(s): SMART DENSITY INC
Property Address: 6588 FINCH AVE W
COA File No.: 24 177312 WET 01 MV (A0317/24EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 219709 S45 01 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): January 21, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings: January 21, 2025
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member R. Kanter
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
Name
Representative
Applicant
SMART DENSITY INC
Appellant
418067 ONTARIO LIMITED
DAVID BRONSKILL
Appellant’s Witness
Graig Uens
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On May 23, 2024, a Pre-Application Consultation meeting was held with the Appellant and the City of Toronto regarding an application proposing a 9-storey self-storage warehouse building (the “Proposal)” at 6588 Finch Avenue West (the “Site”).
2On June 2, 2024, City Planning staff issued comments requesting a reduction in the building height, but not commenting on any other aspect of the Proposal.
3After reviewing the City’s comments, and further meetings with City Planning staff, the Appellant reduced the height of the building to 6 stories, and made further changes to comply with zoning by-law setbacks and address other City policies.
4On August 6, 2024, the Applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment (the “C of A”) for three (3) variances to permit a 6-storey self storage warehouse (the “Application”). The requested variances to Zoning By-law 569-2013 (the “ZBL”) are to allow:
a self storage warehouse use, not permitted in an Employment (E) zone;
a maximum floor space index (“FSI”) of 3.97 times the lot area, when 1 times is permitted; and
a loading space within a building with vehicle access through a main front wall that faces a street.
5Subsequently, the Applicant delivered letters to businesses and neighbours, and conducted several information sessions concerning the Application.
6On September 5, 2024, City Planning staff submitted a Report to the C of A recommending that the Application be refused (the “City Report”).
7On September 11, 2024, the Applicant submitted a letter responding to the City Report, requesting that the Application be approved.
8On September 12, 2024, the C of A heard the Application. No residents or businesses appeared in opposition.
9On September 20, 2024, the C of A issued a Notice of Decision refusing the Application (the “C of A Decision”)
10On September 30, 2024, counsel for the Appellant, Mr. David Bronskill, filed a Notice of Appeal of the C of A Decision with the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “TLAB”).
11On January 21, 2025, I was the Presiding Member at the appeal held remotely before the “TLAB”. Mr. David Bronskill appeared as counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Graig Uens appeared as an expert planning witness for the Appellant. No one appeared on behalf of the City, local business or residents.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
12Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
13Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
14Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
15Mr. Uens provided a summary of his education and experience as a land use planner for the public and private sectors. I qualified him as an expert in the field of land use planning, able to give opinion evidence in that field.
16He described the Site, which consists of 3,041 square metres, and is located on the north side of Finch Avenue West (“Finch Ave. W.”). The Site is bordered on the north and west by low-rise commercial and industrial buildings; and on the east by a hydro corridor. Low-rise residences are located east of the hydro corridor and south of Finch Ave. W.
17The Site is within 50 metres of a bus route currently operating on Finch Ave. W., and within 50 metres of a Finch Light Rapid Transit scheduled to start operating relatively soon.
18The Site is currently occupied by a one-storey automotive use building set back approximately 15 metres from Finch Ave. W. Four (4) roll-up vehicle doors face Finch Ave. W. Surface parking and outdoor storage are located at the front and rear of the Site. It is primarily hard surfaced, with no deliberately landscaped areas.
19The Application would replace the existing 1-storey automotive use with a 6-storey self-storage warehouse set back approximately 3 metres from the front and side lot lines, and 7.75 metres from the rear lot line. The front façade of the building contains glazing on Floors 1 through 4 that wraps around to the sides, and is clad in an anodized aluminium curtain wall and ribbed metal cladding. See the Site Plan and Building Elevations, prepared by Rick Brown and Associates, Revised Sept. 05, 2024 Drawings SP-1, SP-2, P-07, P-08, P-09, & P-10 (Exhibit 1)
20Approximately 638 metres are proposed as soft landscaping, including a portion of the front yard, except for one vehicle driveway, a pedestrian walkway, and bicycle parking.
21The proposed Site Plan shows that vehicle parking and access to storage will all be contained internally within the proposed building.
22Mr. Uens provided opinion evidence that the Application has regard to matters of provincial interest, particularly with respect to the adequate provision of employment opportunities, the appropriate location for growth and development, and the promotion of well-designed built form.
23He provided further opinion evidence that the Application is consistent with the new Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (the “PPS 2024”), particularly with respect to encouraging intensification of employment uses, locating small scale warehouses where frequent transit service is available, and providing a transition to adjacent non-employment areas.
24At my request, Mr. Uens focussed his oral evidence on how the Application would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (“OP”). He stated that the Site is designated as an “Employment Area” with respect to its Urban Structure, and further designated as a “General Employment Area” in terms of Land Use.
25He referred to OP Policy 5.6.1, which states that the Plan should be read as a whole; individual policies should not be read in isolation; and the goal of the Plan is to “appropriately balance and reconcile a range of diverse objectives affecting land use planning in the City”.
26He also referred to OP Policies 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.4, which require new development to improve pedestrian safety, and organize vehicular access to minimize their impact.
27Mr. Uens dealt in detail with policies concerning Employment Areas in Chapter 2 of the OP, titled “Shaping the City”. He referred to: Policy 2.2.4.1, which states that all Employment Areas permit warehousing; Policy 2.2.4.2, which states that Employment Areas should retain lands for industrial functions, such as warehousing; and Policy 2.2.4.4, which states that Employment Areas will be enhanced by permitting a broad array of economic activities that encourage existing businesses to expand or diversify.
28Mr. Uens also dealt in detail with policies in Chapter 4 of the OP, titled “Land Use Designations”. He referred to Policy 4.6.2, which states that small-scale restaurants and service uses are permitted in Core Employment Areas; and Policy 4.6.8, which states that development will contribute to the creation of competitive, attractive and highly functional Employment Areas by various means, including: encouraging key clusters of economic activity; providing a high quality public realm; providing landscaping adjacent to any public street; and providing a buffer to Neighbourhoods.
29Mr. Uens stated that the proposed self-storage warehouse use provides services which support existing businesses. He provided an example of a small bookstore in another location which rented space in a nearby warehouse as an example of how the proposal might encourage and support existing businesses, as contemplated by OP Policy 4.
30Mr. Uens provided photos of four (4) other locations where self-storage warehouses were built in Employment Areas.
31Mr. Uens discussed the City Report. In his opinion, the City Report did not challenge the proposed use, but called for a rezoning application to allow for better consultation and evaluation of the Proposal. He explained that the Applicant made extensive efforts to consult, and there was no opposition to the Proposal.
32Mr. Uens stated that a self-storage warehouse is at the low end of job creators in an Employment Area. However, in his opinion this Proposal, for a self-storage warehouse with more stories and floorspace, would likely employ as many people as a traditional warehouse, comprising a lower building with less floorspace. Consequently, there are no significant differences between warehouses, which are permitted in E zones, and self-storage warehouses permitted in other Employment Areas, but not permitted in E zones.
33Mr. Uens explained that the requested increase in FSI was not accompanied by a request for any other built form variances, such as increased height or decreased setbacks. In his opinion, the increased FSI should be evaluated on a qualitative basis. The relatively large Site allows for required front, side and rear yard setbacks. The relatively wide dimensions of Finch Ave. W. could accommodate increased FSI on the Site. Since loading and vehicle circulation were being contained within the Proposal, there would be no significant impacts with respect to noise, traffic or odour arising from the increased FSI.
34Mr. Uens stated that one front-loading door and driveway leading to internal vehicle circulation represented the most efficient and least impactful traffic arrangement. He emphasized that the single driveway represented a significant improvement over the existing condition of four (4) vehicle access doors facing the street without intervening landscaping.
35Mr. Uens opined that the variances were minor in nature, since they would result in less impact than the existing automotive repair use. The Proposal represented an appropriate development for the site, since it would replace an existing automotive repair use with large areas of surface parking and outdoor vehicle storage area with a well-designed facility surrounded by soft landscaping and new tree planting.
36Mr. Uens noted that neither the City Solicitor nor a City Planner attended the hearing to oppose the Proposal.
37In his submissions, Mr. Bronskill also noted that no City staff attended the Hearing. He argued that I could take judicial notice of the significance of the City’s non-participation. He submitted that City staff always attend Hearings if they oppose applications; however, since they did not appear at this Hearing, the City no longer opposes this Application.
38Mr. Bronskill submitted that I should allow the proposed use. He referred to evidence that all types of warehouse uses are permitted throughout both Core and General Employment Areas, and in several employment zones commonly found in Employment Areas, and that there are no significant differences between warehouses which are permitted in E zones, and self-storage warehouses which are not.
39Mr. Bronskill submitted that some businesses such as restaurants and service uses are permitted in Core Employment Areas, as long as they are ancillary to and intended to serve the Employment Areas. However, restaurants, all types of retail and service uses, and fitness centres, are permitted in General Employment Areas regardless of who they serve. Kennels and automated bank machines are permitted uses in E zones, regardless of their clientele. Mr. Bronskill submitted that self-storage warehouses, which may be used by businesses within the Employment Area or residents from outside the Employment Area, should be considered hybrid uses and permitted on the Site, which is designated a General Employment Area.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
40I find that the Proposal has regard for and satisfies the provincial interest as described in Section 2 of the Planning Act, and is also consistent with the PPS, 2024.
41I agree with Mr. Bronskill that the City generally is represented at a Hearing when it apposes an Application. However, there may be various reasons for the City’s appearance, including political pressure from residents, concern about the process, or concern about the planning merits. Similarly, there may be various reasons for the lack of appearance by the City in this case, including workload and staff priorities. I do not find the City’s lack of participation in the Hearing leads me to the conclusion that the City is no longer opposed to the Application.
42I have reviewed the City Report. I agree with Mr. Uens that the Appellant addressed the City’s concerns with respect to consultation. However, I find that the City Report also raised substantive planning concerns about whether the proposed self-storage use maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL:
“A more intensive use of lands in Employment Areas for business and economic activities will be encouraged to make better use of a limited supply of lands available for these activities” (OP Policy 2.2.4.3)
“Self-storage use is excluded by the Zoning By-law for lands zoned Employment (E), as this use does not produce significant employment opportunities or support public transit investment to help achieve the Official Plan’s goals”.
43As I noted above, Mr. Uens provided 4 examples of what he considered “similar” self storage facilities. However, he did not provide evidence of the planning context of the examples. In response to my questions, Mr. Uens candidly admitted he did not know how they had been approved, whether any of them had been the subject of appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal or the TLAB, or details of their proximity to transportation facilities. Consequently, I do not find the examples provide much assistance to my determination.
44The key issue in this case is the proposed use: does a self-storage warehouse maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL?
45There are many provisions in the OP which describe the uses and types of development permitted in Employment Areas.
46According to Chapter 2 of the OP,
“Employment Areas are areas designated in this Plan for clusters of business and economic activities, including but not limited to manufacturing, warehousing, and associated retail and ancillary facilities.” (Policy 2.2.4.1)
“Employment Areas will be used exclusively for business and economic activities, in order to:
a) retain sufficient availability of lands, for both current and future needs, for industrial functions such as manufacturing and warehousing;
b) protect and preserve Employment Areas for current and future business and economic activities . . .
k) contribute to complete communities by providing employment opportunities that support a balance between jobs and housing to reduce the need for long-distance commuting and encourage travel by transit, walking and cycling…” (Policy 2.2.4.2)
“A more intensive use of lands in Employment Areas for business and economic activities will be encouraged to make better use of a limited supply of land for these activities.” (Policy 2.2.4.3)
“Employment Areas will be enhanced to ensure that they are attractive and function well, through actions such as,
a) permitting a broad array of economic activities that encourage existing businesses to expand or diversify into new areas . . .
e) promoting a high quality public realm . . .and landscaped streetscapes to promote pedestrian/transit use . . .” (Policy 2.2.4.4)
“Employment Areas in the vicinity of existing major transportation infrastructure . . . are designated to provide for, and are to be preserved for, employment uses that may rely on the major transportation infrastructure for the movement of goods.” (Policy 2.2.4.11)
47According to Chapter 4 of the OP:
“. . . Uses permitted in Core Employment Areas are all types of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, wholesaling, distribution, storage . . . “ (Policy 4.6.1)
“Additional uses are permitted providing they are ancillary to and intended to serve the Core Employment Area . . . small-scale restaurants, catering facilities and small-scale service uses . . .” (Policy 4.6.2)
. . . “permitted uses in General Employment Areas also include all types of retail and service uses” (Policy 4.6.3)
“Fitness centres are permitted in General Employment Areas.” (Policy 4.6.4)
“Development will contribute to the creation of competitive, attractive, highly functional Employment Areas by:
. . .j) providing landscaping on the front and any flanking yard adjacent to any public street . . .to create an attractive streetscape, and screening parking, loading and service areas.” (Policy 4.6.8)
48As noted by Mr. Uens, the OP also contains provisions in Chapter 3 dealing with pedestrian safety, and Chapter 5 dealing with interpretation.
49The OP sets out a number of different but broadly compatible objectives for permitted uses in General Employment Areas. It permits warehouse and storage uses, which are limited to employing people who service and enhance other businesses. However, it also permits restaurants, retail and service uses and fitness centres, which are not ancillary to or intended to serve businesses. Such uses employ people who serve the general public, rather than serving only employees of other area businesses. The OP also encourages new development which supports and encourages existing businesses, particularly if the development improves landscaping and buffering and encourages transit use.
50According to the evidence, albeit anecdotal rather than based on data, the proposed self-storage warehouse can provide storage for existing small businesses as well as residential users. I find that a self-storage warehouse is a hybrid use, which since it can serve both existing business and non-business users, a permitted use in a General Employment Area.
51I agree with Mr. Uens’ evidence that the Proposal would improve landscaping and buffering, and his opinion that the Proposal would likely rely on and support the forthcoming Finch LRT for a portion of its business.
52Based on the evidence that the proposed use is permitted by the OP, and that the proposed built form constitutes a substantial improvement over the existing use, I find that a self-storage warehouse maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP for a General Employment Area.
53According to the OP, Implementing Zoning By-law[s] will create a gradation of zones that distinguish between employment uses on the basis of their potential operations and impacts to ensure ~~a ~~compatibility of uses within Employment Areas. (Policy 4.6.9)
54The ZBL defines a Warehouse to mean:
premises used for keeping or storing goods or commodities, to which the general public does not have access, and may also be used for the distribution of the goods or commodities
55The ZBL defines Self-Storage Warehouse to mean:
premises where individual enclosed areas are made available to the public for keeping or storing goods or commodities
56According to Mr. Uen’s uncontroverted and uncontradicted evidence, the number of employees in the proposed 6 story self-storage warehouse would likely be similar to the number of employees in a typical 1 or 2 story warehouse with a larger floorplate. The only difference is that members of the public can access the self-storage facility, whereas only business employees can access the warehouse.
57According to the evidence, self-storage warehouses are permitted in other Employment Zones, such as the Employment Light Industrial Zone (EL) and the Employment Industrial Office Zone (EO).
58According to the evidence, public vehicular access from Finch Ave. W. will be limited to one driveway, and all parking and loading on the Site will be located within the proposed building.
59According to the evidence, the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the E zone, and more compatible with the residential uses to the east and south.
60I find that the proposed use maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.
61The Proposal requests a significant numerical increase in FSI, from 1 to 3.97 times coverage. However, it is not seeking variances for heights or setbacks. I agree with Mr. Uens and find The evidence shows that the increased FSI will have no significant adverse impact on the employment area to the west and north, or the residential area to the east and south.
62I find that the proposed variances are minor in nature.
63The existing auto service use has 4 driveways, surface parking and no landscaping. Consequently, the Proposal, which reduces the number of driveways to 1, and adds landscaping surrounding the building, is appropriate for the development of the Site.
CONCLUSION
64I find that the variances sought by the Appellant, individually and cumulatively, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. I find that the requested variances are minor and desirable for the development of the land.
DECISION AND ORDER
65The Appeal is allowed. The following variances at 6588 Finch Ave. W. are approved, subject to the condition herein:
A self storage warehouse use be permitted in the E zone;
The maximum permitted floor space index be 3.97 times the lot area; and
The proposed loading vehicle access be through a main wall that faces a street.
Condition:
That the proposed building shall be constructed substantially in accordance with Site Plan and Building Elevations, prepared by Rick Brown and Associates, Revised Sept. 05, 2024 Drawings SP-1, SP-2, P-07, P-08, P-09, & P-10 (Exhibit 1), attached hereto.
R. Kanter
Panel Member
R.Kanter
Panel Member