Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal D’Appel De L’Aménagement Local
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local ISSUE DATE: May 15, 2019 CASE NO(S).: PL170366 PL170367 The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: 316 Bloor West Toronto Developments Ltd. Appellant: 334 Bloor West Limited Appellant: Bloor Street United Church Appellant: Bloor-Madison Realty Inc.; and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 365 Municipality: City of Toronto OMB Case No.: PL170366 OMB File No.: PL170366 OMB Case Name: Bloor-Madison Realty Inc. v. Toronto (City) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: 316 Bloor West Toronto Developments Ltd. Appellant: 334 Bloor West Limited Appellant: Bloor Street United Church Appellant: Starbank Developments 350 Corp.; and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 368 Municipality: City of Toronto OMB Case No.: PL170367 OMB File No.: PL170367 OMB Case Name: Bloor Street United Church v. Toronto (City) 2 PL170366 PL170367 Heard: March 25 and 28, April 2 and 4, 2019 in Toronto, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel*/Representative City of Toronto Ray Kallio* and Aderinsola Abimbola* Governing Council of the University Signe Leisk* and Adrianna Pilkington* of Toronto Starbank Developments 350 Mark Noskiewicz* Corporation 334 Bloor West Limited Mark Noskiewicz* First Capital (Ontario) Corporation Anne Benedetti* Bloor-Madison Realty Inc. Mark Flowers* Bloor Street United Church Kim Kovar* Huron-Sussex Residents Julie Mathien and John Lang Organization Harbord Village Residents’ Sue Dexter Association Annex Residents’ Corporation David Harrison and Ed Leman MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GERALD S. SWINKIN ON APRIL 4, 2019 INTRODUCTION [1] On March 9, 2017, the Council of the City of Toronto (the “City”) enacted By-law Nos. 245-2017 and 246-2017 to adopt Official Plan Amendment 365 (“OPA 365”) and Official Plan Amendment 368 (“OPA 368”) respectively. These are connected planning instruments. Seven appeals were filed with the City Clerk. [2] For case management purposes at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the 3 PL170366 PL170367 “Tribunal”), these appeals were connected and there were Pre-hearing Conferences dealing with them. [3] OPA 368 is a discrete amendment to the City Official Plan (“OP”) with respect to policy concerning protected views of heritage designated property. The purpose of OPA 368 was to displace the existing Heritage Policy A.5 found in Schedule 4 to the OP in favour of a revised policy which would impose a more stringent view protection relating to what is referred to as the Knox College building at 1 Spadina Crescent. [4] The policy relating to the Knox College building as adopted prior to the OPA 368 amendment protected the view of the building as viewed from three defined vantage points, being the southeast and southwest corners of Spadina Avenue and College Street as well as the Spadina streetcar right-of-way. [5] The intention behind OPA 368 was to protect a silhouette view of the building, having the sky as a backdrop without the intrusion of physical structures from the viewing points. [6] OPA 365 is intended as a refinement of planning policy for what is known as the Bloor Corridor/Annex Block Planning Study area. This area was the subject of an official plan amendment in the form of Official Plan Amendment 98, which created Site and Area Specific Policy 334 (“SASP 334”). SASP 334 affects the Bloor Street corridor from Avenue Road to Bathurst Street, and it breaks that corridor up into Nodes. SASP 334 provided general direction for development along the Bloor Street corridor but it did not specify building heights. [7] The engagement of connection between policy in SASP 334 and the revised policy as adopted in OPA 368 is that lands at the intersection of Spadina Avenue and Bloor Street (within the Spadina Node), which lies considerably to the north of the Knox College building, give rise to the possibility of intrusion into the silhouette view of the Knox College building if constructed beyond a certain height. Here it must be stated that the Knox College building lies smack in the middle of the Spadina Avenue right-of- way, just north of College Street, as it is on a parcel of land that is an aneurysm of 4 PL170366 PL170367 Spadina Avenue, created originally to function as a circular ornamental garden, and there is therefore behind it (that is, to the north) an unencumbered right-of-way corridor essentially up to Bloor Street and beyond (it necessarily also having to be said that the Spadina Avenue right-of-way is generally uniformly straight until a point just south of Bloor Street, where it arcs slightly west). [8] In fact, there is an expectation of height precisely at the intersection of Spadina Avenue and Bloor Street since the Spadina Node has been identified as a multi-modal transit hub as it is the location of the Spadina Station on the Bloor-Danforth subway line and the north terminus of the Harbourfront Light Rapid Transit line. [9] In keeping with the Provincial planning mandate, through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (the “Growth Plan”), of creating intensified density around major transit station areas, and generally encouraging transit supportive development, the land use planning analysis of this intersection suggests building heights which might well penetrate the silhouette view of the Knox College building. [10] The owners of land in the Spadina Node had concerns about the view protection amendment impairing the potential to achieve what otherwise might be treated as acceptable height and density from a land use planning perspective. As noted above, seven appeals were launched to address just this issue. [11] It must be indicated here that those seven appeals also took issue with other aspects of OPA 365. As the view of Knox College and its impact on potential new development height was a discrete issue, the Parties determined to separate that matter out from the appeal issues otherwise directed and to deal with it in a first phase hearing. As such, the matters before this panel of the Tribunal in the first phase hearing were the entirety of OPA 368 and only Section 1 (iii) (e) of OPA 365. This clause of OPA 365 requires the submission of a view corridor analysis relating to Knox College. With the consent of all Parties, clause (b), concerning height within the height peak, subsequently also came into play for approval subject to reservation of ongoing appeal rights. 5 PL170366 PL170367 [12] When the first phase hearing convened on March 25, 2019 the Tribunal was advised by Ray Kallio, counsel to the City, that a provisional settlement had been achieved amongst the Parties and that the City would be seeking direction from City Council committing to it. That Council meeting was scheduled for March 27, 2019 Accordingly, the hearing was stood down and re-convened on March 28, 2019 so that the Tribunal could be apprised of the outcome and determine the circumstances which would govern the balance of the first phase hearing. [13] On March 28, 2019 Mr. Kallio advised that City Council had, in fact, endorsed the provisional settlement. In order to implement the settlement, it was necessary to prepare revised documents as OPA 368 was now to have certain graphics appended to it and there was need of time for their preparation, circulation and sign off. The hearing was again stood down, to reconvene on April 2, 2019 at which time it was advised that the Tribunal would hear consent evidence from two City witnesses, a land use planner and a heritage planner. [14] Despite best efforts, the revised documents were not ready for April 2, 2019. The Tribunal again stood down the hearing, to reconvene on April 4, 2019. On April 4, 2019 the matter proceeded to its conclusion. [15] As advised, Mr. Kallio called Barry Brooks, a Senior Planner from the City Planning Division, who is the primary responsible City planner with respect to the Bloor Corridor/Annex Block Planning Study. He also called Mary MacDonald, who is the Senior Manager of Heritage Preservation Services, Urban Design in the City Planning Division. [16] Mr. Brooks was qualified to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters in the proceeding. Ms. MacDonald was qualified to offer opinion evidence on heritage policy, heritage planning and heritage conservation matters in the proceeding. [17] Mr. Brooks provided some overview evidence and then returned to speak about the general role of SASP 334 in guiding development within the Bloor Street Corridor. He spoke about particular applications which are currently being processed in the 6 PL170366 PL170367 Spadina Node. An application was recently approved for the property at 316 Bloor St. West for a mixed use development of 29 storeys. An approval is being pursued for the property at 300 Bloor Street West (the Bloor Street United Church property) seeking 29 storeys. [18] There are applications in and under review with respect to 328-332 Bloor Street West as well as 334-350 Bloor Street West. [19] Mr. Brooks advised that whereas there had previously been a 25 storey limit to development in this corridor, OPA 365 now provided for 35 to 38 storeys within what is defined as the height peak, being the northwest and northeast corners of Bloor Street West and Spadina Road.