Dundas Ossington Developments Limited (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 327

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2025-04-28

24 251640 S45 09 TLAB

Dundas Ossington Developments Limited (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 327

Issuance Date:

April 28, 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):

Applicant(s):

Property Address:

1200 DUNDAS ST W

COA File No.:

24 168376 STE 09 MV (A0582/24TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

24 251640 S45 09 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

April 14, 2025

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

Appellant

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This was a hearing before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) for the property located at 1200 Dundas Street West (the “Subject Property”). The Applicant/Appellant appeals a denial by the Toronto and East York panel of the Committee of Adjustment of a minor variance application involving one minor variance.

2The Subject Property is located at the northeast corner of Dundas Street West and Lakeview Avenue and is located in the “Little Portugal” neighbourhood. The Subject Property has been improved with an eight-storey mixed-use building, which is currently in the final stages of construction.

3Two exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing:

a. Exhibit 1: Expert Witness Statement of Ryan D Doherty received by the Tribunal on March 10, 2025

b. Exhibit 2: Visual Evidence Book filed by the Applicant/Appellant and received by the Tribunal on March 10, 2025

4I will now review the legal framework guiding this matter.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

5A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to matters of Provincial Interest as outlined in subsections 2(a) – (s) of the Planning Act (the “Act”).

6As outlined in section 3 of the Act, a Decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

7In considering an application for variances from the City of Toronto (the “City”) Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an application meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

a. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

b. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;

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

d. are minor.

8The application before the Tribunal is for one minor variance as follows

Chapter 900.11.10(407), Exception CR 407, Regulation (E)(ii), By-law 569-2013 and Site Specific By-Law 398-2022(OLT)

A minimum of 10% of the required number of three-bedroom dwelling units must be provided on the lot (a total of 11 dwelling units).

In this case, 5% of the required number of three-bedroom dwelling units will be provided on the lot (a total of 6 dwelling units).

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

9The Applicant/Appellant was the only party to this proceeding, and there were no Participants. The Tribunal heard evidence from one witness, Ryan Doherty, a consulting land use planner and an Associate at Bousfields Inc. Mr. Doherty has a Master of Science in Planning Degree from the University of Toronto, and is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Mr. Doherty was qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

10Mr. Doherty provided his opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests for a minor variance as outlined in section 45(1) of the Act. Mr. Doherty testified that the Applicant/Appellant is bringing the minor variance application as a result of change orders placed by the purchasers of five units to convert those units from 3-bedrooms to 2-bedrooms. The size of the units will remain the same. Mr. Doherty further testified that the change orders were made after the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the impacted units were firm, and prior to the occupancy of the units. Mr. Doherty’s testimony was that due to the location of the Subject Property in a desirable neighbourhood, these independent requests are typically for owner-occupied units.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Provincial Interest

11I find that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, including: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development.

2024 Provincial Planning Statement

12Mr. Doherty provided his opinion that the proposal does not rise to the level of importance in terms of the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. I find that the proposal is consistent with the policies contained in the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. Relevant policies are contained in Chapter 2: Building Homes, Sustaining Strong and Competitive Communities.

Minor Variance Test

Do the Variances Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

13The Subject Property is designated Mixed Use Areas on Map 18 of the Official Plan. The intent and purpose of the policies pertaining to lands designated Mixed Use Areas is to allow for new buildings containing a broad range of residential and/or commercial uses that are designed to limit undue impact on the public realm and surrounding properties. I find that the proposal will continue to provide for an 8-storey mixed-use building with the same built form that was previously approved by the OLT following a settlement between the City and the Applicant/Appellant, and will contain a mix of new residential and retail commercial uses.

14The Subject Property is identified as being on an Avenue on Map 2, Urban Structure, of the Official Plan. Chapter 2 of the Official Plan, provides that Avenues are planned to accommodate mixed-use development, with an emphasis on residential growth. Strong policy support is expressed in the Official Plan for mixed-use intensification along the Avenues, in a form that is intended to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and concentrate population and jobs in areas well served by existing and planned transit.

15Mr. Doherty provided his opinion and I accept that the proposal will both enhance and add to the existing housing stock in the area, in conformity with Policies 3.2.1(1) and 3.2.1(2) of the Official Plan.

16Policy 4.5(2) outlines the development criteria in Mixed Use Areas. I have reviewed these criteria and have determined they have been met for this proposal.

17Mr. Doherty provided his opinion that while the Official Plan encourages the provision of a full range of housing, there are no policies in the Official Plan that speak to requiring a specific unit mix or size. Policy 5.3.2(1) provides that implementation plans, strategies and guidelines, while they express Council policy, are not part of the Official Plan unless the Plan has been specifically amended to include them and do not have the status of policies of the Official Plan adopted under the Act. This would include the City’s Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines (the “Growing Up Guidelines”). In other words, the Growing Up Guidelines are not part of the Official Plan or codified in the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013.

18The intent of the Guidelines is to provide for a better integration of family supportive design into the planning of new multi-unit residential developments.

19Mr. Doherty’s opinion is that the proposal has appropriate regard for the direction set out in the Growing Up Guidelines as it relates to the provision of larger two- and three-bedroom units. The Growing Up Guidelines recommend that new development provide a minimum of 25 percent larger units of two-bedrooms or greater, including a 15 percent two-bedroom units and 10 percent three-bedroom units. The proposal continues to achieve the overall guideline of 25 percent larger units. The make-up of the larger units is proposed to be changed to 20 percent two-bedroom units and 5 percent three-bedroom units. Mr. Doherty provided his opinion, that the requested variance continues to meet the overall intent of the Growing Up Guidelines given that the overall requirement for larger family sized dwelling units continues to be met.

20In conclusion, I find that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. I also find that the proposal continues to meet the overall intent of the Growing Up Guidelines.

Do the Variances Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

21Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, zones the subject site CR 2.5 (c1.0; r2.0) SS2 (x407). The Commercial Residential zone permits a wide range of commercial and residential uses including offices, personal service shops, retail stores and dwelling units in an apartment building or mixed-use building.

22Exception CR 407 was introduced through By-law 398-2022(OLT), which was enacted on March 30, 2022 as part of the previous rezoning approval for the Subject Property. Exception 407 allows for the development of an 8-storey mixed-use building on the subject site, and sets out the following key development standards, amongst others:

a maximum gross floor area of 6,605 square metres, of which:

o a maximum of 6,250 square metres is for residential uses; and

o a minimum of 355 square metres and a maximum of 400 square metres is for non-residential uses;

of all dwelling units, a minimum of 15 percent must be two-bedroom units and 10 percent must be three-bedroom units;
maximum limits on the metric heights of the various components of the building, together with minimum building setbacks and separation distances, in accordance with Diagram 3;
minimum requirements for indoor and outdoor amenity space; and
minimum rates for vehicular parking, accessible parking spaces; bicycle parking; and loading spaces.

23Mr. Doherty’s opinion is that the requested variance will maintain the general intent and purpose of the By-law, which is to effectively allow for an 8-storey mixed-use building with a specific built form, the inclusion of a minimum number of two- and three-bedroom dwelling units. The requested variance would maintain the overall number of required larger dwelling units at 25 percent of the overall unit mix. Mr. Doherty noted that since the actual sizes of the affected units have not changed, the requested variance would not result in any increase in the number of dwelling units or changes to the built form, floor layouts, or any other performance standards in the By-law (such as amenity space, required parking spaces etc.).

24Mr. Doherty also provided his opinion that the base zoning provisions outlined in the applicable CR zone in the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 do not regulate unit count, mix or size. Instead, considerations relating to unit count, mix and size in the CR zone are typically regulated through maximum residential density permissions, and weighing those permissions against what is feasible from a market demand perspective.

25Mr. Doherty stated that the applicable unit mix and size restrictions set out in By-law 398-2022(OLT) were introduced through the previous rezoning process and served to further establish the direction set out in the Growing Up Guidelines. Mr. Doherty’s further opinion is that the requested two- and three-bedroom unit mix being sought by the requested variance would otherwise be permitted as-of-right by the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013.

26I accept Mr. Doherty’s opinions as noted above, and find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Are the Variances Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land

27Mr. Doherty provided his opinion that the proposal will continue to result in the redevelopment of the Subject Property with a midrise mixed-use building with the same site organization, built form and density as previously approved. Mr. Doherty’s opinion is that the requested variance would not result in any unacceptable built form impacts on adjacent properties or the public realm. In addition, Mr. Doherty’s opinion is that the proposal will continue to provide a minimum of 25 percent larger dwelling units, with changes made in the number of two- and three bedroom dwelling units as a result of purchaser demand. I accept Mr. Doherty’s opinion and find that the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

Are the Variances Minor

28The minor test is not a simple numeric test, but an assessment of impact. Mr. Doherty’s opinion is that the requested variance and resulting reduction in the number of three-bedroom units is minor in nature and will not result in any undue impacts.

29Mr. Doherty’s opinion is that the requested variance would result in a unit mix that continues to meet the overall number of larger dwelling units required by By-law 398-2022(OLT) and recommended by Section 2.1 of the Growing Up Guidelines (i.e., 25% two- and three-bedroom units). As such the overall objective of achieving larger family-sized units with the development continues to be met. Mr. Doherty also reviewed eight recent approvals where developments will have less than 10% three-bedroom units.

30In this case, the requested variance is being sought by the Applicant/Appellant following requests made by the unit purchasers to convert their respective three-bedroom dwelling units into two-bedroom dwelling units. The evidence before the Tribunal was that these units were originally designed and sold as three-bedroom dwelling units.

31The proposal does not contemplate any changes to the built form of the building, the sizes of dwelling units or floor plan layouts. The dwelling units are essentially being converted from three-bedroom dwelling units into larger two-bedroom dwelling units with the same general layout.

32I find that this phase of the minor variance test is met, and that the proposal is minor in nature.

CONCLUSION

33In conclusion, I find that the proposal meets the four tests for a minor variance as outlined in section 45(1) of the Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

34The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the requested variance is approved.

T. Kezwer

Panel Member