Toronto (City) v. Walker Nott Dragicievic Associates Limited WND Associates, 2025 ONTLAB 310

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2025-03-10

25 109958 S45 10 TLAB

Toronto (City) vs WALKER NOTT DRAGICIEVIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED WND ASSOCIATES, 2025 ONTLAB 310

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: March 10, 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): CITY OF TORONTO

Applicant(s): WALKER NOTT DRAGICIEVIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED WND ASSOCIATES

Property Address: 2 Tecumseth St

COA File No.: 23 220899 STE 10 MV (A0984/23TEY)

TLAB Case File No.: 25 109958 S45 10 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): 3/5/2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type	First Initial. Last Name	Representative
Owner	2TS WT Nominee Inc	D. Bronskill
Applicant	WALKER NOTT DRAGICIEVIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED WND ASSOCIATES	D. Bronskill
Appellant	City of Toronto	U. Gautam & M. Crawford

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1. The property before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) in this proceeding is municipally known as 2 Tecumseth Street (the “Property”).

2. The Property is located at the foot of Tecumseth St., generally north of the historic Fort York complex, immediately north of the existing rail corridor and south of the dwellings fronting Niagara St.

3. The Property is irregular in shape, comprising 1.98 hectares.

4. The Property had historically been occupied as an abattoir (Quality Meats), processing cattle and pigs, until ceasing operation in 2014 and then being decommissioned.

5. In November, 2017, the owner submitted applications to the City of Toronto for official plan amendment and zoning amendment in order to permit development of the site with six buildings for community, office and mixed use purposes.

6. Through discussions among the owner, the City and various stakeholders, and after filing appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (now Ontario Land Tribunal), a development proposal was resolved and was endorsed by the parties on a settlement basis before the Ontario Land Tribunal in February, 2020.

7. The revised proposal provided for four buildings, two mixed use buildings at heights of 83m and 98m, and two non-residential buildings at heights of 36m and two storeys. The permissions and regulations were set out in an amendment to City of Toronto Comprehensive Zoning By-law 569-2013 through site specific provisions as enacted in By-law 1336-2023.

8. The development proposal is subject to an active Site Plan Application.

9. As is not uncommon, since the settlement of the development plan in 2020, time has moved on and planning policy at the City of Toronto has evolved. One very significant planning policy change has been around the matter of on-site parking requirements in connection with residential use. It would be fair to say that since the relevant amendment of the Zoning By-law on a City-wide basis in 2022, the requirement of on-site resident parking in connection with residential use has been abolished. The City-wide Zoning By-law though does retain a requirement for visitor parking in connection with residential use, the rate of supply for which is area-dependent.

10. In revisiting the development proposal in light of this major change and other design and infrastructure considerations, the development concept has been re-worked.

11. One effect of the re-working is that a design decision was made to reduce the mass of the proposed buildings by making them thinner and taller. Consequently, two of the buildings have increased in height by 4 and 6 storeys respectively (to 31 and 39 storeys) with a modest overall increase in gross floor area.

12. As well, the allocation and amount of parking was altered.

13. Some setbacks were adjusted and the timing of certain public works as detailed in Section 37 provisions in the site specific by-law have also been addressed.

14. As these changes have advanced on the basis that they represent reasonably modest modifications to the proposal as last endorsed by City Council, a procedural decision was made that the necessary adjustments to the zoning provisions could be achieved by way of application for variance relief from the Committee of Adjustment.

15. To that end, an application to the Committee was made by the owner seeking nine heads of variance relief. The application was supported by the City. The Committee dealt with that application and, on January 8, 2025, approved the nine heads of relief. The decision of approval was subject to two conditions.

16. After the Committee decision was made and issued, a technical issue was apprehended and in order to address and repair it, the City filed an appeal of that decision so that this tribunal could exercise its authority to address that issue.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

17. Provincial Interest - S. 2, Planning Act

A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as clauses (a) – (s) in Section 2 of the Planning Act.

18. Provincial Policy – S. 3, Planning Act

A Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

19. Variance – S. 45(1), Planning Act

In considering the application for variances from the Zoning By-law, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the application meets all of the four tests under s. 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-law;

• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and

• are minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

20. Prior to the hearing, an affidavit was deposed by Sean McGaffey, a consulting land use planner retained by the owner, and filed with the Tribunal. Mr. McGaffey was present at the hearing of the Tribunal and was qualified to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters in the hearing, and did give oral evidence.

21. Mr. McGaffey provided a summary background of the site, its context and the milestone events that were achieved in the promulgation of the zoning which currently applies to the Property.

22. Mr. McGaffey also spoke to the currents of change in City planning policy which have been the subject of review regarding the proposed development of this site. He explained the determination of modifications to the proposal which were resolved among the owner, the City and other stakeholders in light of same.

23. Mr. McGaffey detailed the nine heads of variance relief which were set out in the application to the Committee of Adjustment and took the Tribunal through his analysis as to how those requests met the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Those nine heads of relief are set out in the Order clause below.

24. Mr. McGaffey explained the unusual circumstance which led to the matter landing here at the Tribunal. In the finalization of the parking provision on the Property, it was determined that the Property should provide visitor parking consistent with the rate presently stipulated by the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for residential visitor purposes. The Site Plan as currently being processed reflects this requirement. However, the quirk of this site is that the site specific zoning provisions specify that no visitor parking is required. Consequently, in order to ensure that the level of visitor parking contemplated by the Site Plan will continue to be provided into the future, the owner and the City have resolved to request that the Tribunal add a further condition to the two imposed by the Committee to the effect that the relief granted is subject to visitor parking continuing to be provided at the rate of a minimum of 2 plus 0.05 residential visitor parking spaces per unit, which may be shared with non-residential parking on a non-exclusive basis as shown on the identified site plan.

ISSES AND ANALYSIS

25. The Tribunal is satisfied with Mr. McGaffey’s analysis of the Section 45(1) Planning Act tests relating to this application, and accepts his view that those tests are met in this instance.

26. The Tribunal further accepts Mr. McGaffey’s opinion that the relief requested here is consistent with Provincial planning policy and interests.

27. The Tribunal is also content that it has the necessary jurisdiction to add the further condition requested by the Parties.

CONCLUSION

28. The Tribunal appreciates the desire of the Parties to update the design of the proposal and ensure ongoing compliance with the features which have been settled upon.

29. The Tribunal will allow the appeal for the purpose of endorsing the approval granted by the Committee of Adjustment and making that approval subject to the three conditions which are detailed in the Order below.

DECISION AND ORDER

30. The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and that the following variances are approved on the three conditions set forth below:

31. Chapter 900.12.10 (813) (E), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted heights for the tower elements, as shown on Diagram

8B of By-law 1336-2023(OLT), are 93.5 m (26-storeys) for the eastern tower

(Building C) and 110.5 m (33-storeys) for the western tower (Building A).

In this case, the height of the eastern tower elements (Building C) will be 110.5 m

(31-storeys) and the height of the western tower elements (Building A) will be

130.5 m (39-storeys), as shown on the attached Revised Diagram 8B [see Committee

of Adjustment materials for the Diagrams referred to in these conditions].

2. Chapter 900.12.10 (813) (I)(b), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted total gross floor area of all buildings and structures on

the lot is 92,600 sq.m, with a maximum permitted gross floor area of 82,800 sq.m. on

Area B, as shown on Diagram 7 of By-law 1336-2023(OLT).

In this case, the total gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot will

be 97,150 sq.m., of which 85,200 sq.m. will be located within Area B (shown on the

attached Diagram 7).

3. Chapter 900.12.10 (813)(O)(ii), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 227 parking spaces for residential dwelling units, and no visitor

parking spaces must be provided on this lot.

In this case, a minimum of 0 parking spaces will be provided for residential

dwelling units.

4. Chapter 900.12.10 (813)(O)(iii), By-law 569-2013

A minimum of 130 parking spaces are required for non-residential uses.

In this case, a minimum of 0 parking spaces will be provided for non-residential

uses.

5. Chapter 900.12.10 (813)(K), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required building setbacks and separation distances between main

walls of buildings or structures are shown on Diagrams 8A and 8B of By-law

1336-2023(OLT).

In this case, the building setbacks and separate distances between main walls of

buildings or structures on the lot will be as shown on the attached Diagram 8A

and Revised Diagram 8B.

6. Chapter 900.12.10 (813)(W)(ii), By-law 569-2013

Loading spaces must be provided within Area B of the lot as follows:

I. 2 Type “B” loading spaces

Ii. 2 Type “C” loading spaces; and

Iii. 1 Type “G” loading space

In this case, loading spaces will be provided within Area B of the lot as follows:

I. 2 Type “C” loading spaces; and

II. 2 Type “G” loading spaces

7. Chapter 900.12.10 (813)(F), By-law 569-2013

Equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted maximum heights as

shown on Diagrams 8A and 8B.

In this case, equipment and structures will project beyond the maximum heights

as shown on the attached Revised Diagram 8B.

8. Schedule A, Section E, By-law 1336-2023(OLT)

Prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for part or all of the

development on the lands, the owner shall submit a proposed design, a phasing

plan and a cost estimate for construction of the multi-use path referenced in

Paragraph 4.C of By-law 1336-2023(OLT), to the General Manager, Parks,

Forestry and Recreation for approval, including working drawings, specification

and landscape plans.

In this case, prior to the issuance of the Notice of Approval Conditions or first

above-grade building permit for Area B (shown on Diagram 7 of By-law 1336-

2023(OLT)), the owner will submit a proposed design, a phasing plan showing

the interim and final build out, and cost estimates for the construction of the multiuse

path (referenced in Paragraph 4.C of By-law 1336-2023(OLT)), to the

General Manager, Transportation Services for approval, including working

drawings, specification and landscape plans.

9. Schedule A, Section G, By-law 1336-2023(OLT)

Prior to the earlier of condominium registration for a building on the lands

delineated as Area B, as shown on Diagram 7 of By-law 1336-2023(OLT), and

the first residential use for a building on the lands delineated as Area B as shown

on Diagram 7 of By-law 1336-2023(OLT), the owner shall design and construct,

at its own cost and expense, public realm improvements above the base

condition at the southern terminus of the Tecumseth Street right-of-way, to be

offset by applicable development charge credits, to the satisfaction of the

General Manager, Transportation Services, as more specifically set out in the

Section 37 Agreement.

In this case, prior to the first residential occupancy for a building on the lands

delineated as Area B (shown on Diagram 7 of By-law 1336-2023(OLT)), the

owner will design and construct, at its own cost and expense, a portion of the

public realm improvements above the base condition with the remaining portion

to be completed prior to the first residential occupancy of the last building

for the lands delineated as Area B on Diagram 7, at the southern terminus of the

Tecumseth Street right-of way, to be offset by applicable development charge

credits, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services, as

more specifically set out in the Section 37 Agreement.

The CONDITIONS are as follows:

1. If the owner does not successfully participate in the Purpose-built Rental

Housing Program to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Housing

Secretariat, the Owner shall, at its sole cost and expense, enter into an

agreement pursuant to Subsections 45(9) and (9.1) of the Planning Act to

secure two (2) affordable units, for a minimum 40-year affordability period at

the City of Toronto Official Plan definition of affordable rent, to the satisfaction

of the Executive Director, Development Review, with such agreement

registered on title to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

2. The owner shall register on title the revised Section 37 Agreement, to reflect

the changes to Schedule A of By-law 1336-2023(OLT) noted in the variances,

to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Director, Community Planning, in

consultation with any relevant divisions related to the timing and design details

of both the interim and final build out of the Multi-Use Path and the Tecumseth

Street public realm improvements, based on the construction phasing for the

subject lands; and,

3. A minimum of 2 plus 0.05 residential visitor parking spaces per unit, which may

be shared with non-residential parking on a non-exclusive basis, shall be

provided on-site and secured as part of Site Plan Control Application No. 21

239771 STE 10 SA to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development

Review.

G. Swinkin

Panel Member