Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local

ISSUE DATE: October 29, 2019 CASE NO(S).: PL160330

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 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Davenport Development Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438- 86 - Neglect of the City of to make a decision Existing Zoning: Commercial Residential (CR) Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 39-storey mixed use building development Property Address/Description: 100 Davenport Road Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 15 262982 STE 27 OZ OMB Case No.: PL160330 OMB File No.: PL160330 OMB Case Name: Davenport Development Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Davenport Development Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Mixed Use Areas and Neighbourhoods Proposed Designated: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a 39-storey mixed use building development 2 PL160330

Property Address/Description: 100 Davenport Road Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 16 132256 STE 27 OZ OMB Case No.: PL160330 OMB File No.: PL160924

Heard: February 26 to March 16, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel/Representative*

Davenport Development Inc Patrick Devine Adrian Frank

City of Toronto Kelly Matsumoto C. lltan

Toronto Aged Men’s and Women’s Barnett Kussner Home (Belmont House)

ABC Residents’ Association Andrew Biggart

Toronto Standard Condominium N. Jane Pepino Corporation (TSCC) 2280, The Florian

TSCC 1474, Domus Ian Flett Charles Hantho*

Greater Yorkville Residents’ Andrew Biggart Association (GYRA) Alan Baker*

DECISION DELIVERED BY K.J. HUSSEY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

[1] These are appeals by Davenport Development Inc. (the “Applicant”) with respect to applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, for the property municipally known as 100 Davenport Road (the “subject site”) in the City of Toronto (‘City”). The proposal would permit a development of a 29-storey mixed use building

3 PL160330

consisting of commercial and retail uses, and 56 residential units. The City refused the application for the Zoning By-law Amendment. There was no decision within the statutory period on the application for Official Plan Amendment, and so the Applicant brought these appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”).

[2] Objections to the development were raised by the City of Toronto, Toronto Aged Men’s and Women’s Home (Belmont House), owners of residential units in the adjacent condominium building, ABC Residents’ Association (“ABCRA”) and Greater Yorkville Residents’ Association (“GYRA”).

THE LOCATION AND PLANNING CONTEXT

[3] The subject site is centrally located in the Downtown Area of the City within the Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown area, near to the intersection of and . It is on the south-east corner of Davenport Road and McAlpine Street, just north of the Davenport intersection with . Davenport Road is a two-way 27 metres (“m”) wide major arterial road. The subject site is within the triangular area framed by Yonge Street to the east, Davenport to the south west, Belmont Street to the north, and internally, by the neighbourhood streets McMurrich, McAlpine and Blackmore. It is the last property to be redeveloped within the block.

[4] Immediately north of the subject site, at the north east corner of McAlpine street and Davenport Road, is the property known as 110 Davenport Road. It contains a 4- storey commercial building constructed in 1991 and was designed by the architect Barton Myers. The south facade of the Building includes a clock tower, referred to as the Myers Clock Tower. The City presented evidence that the building at 110 Davenport Road marks the view terminus at Bay Street and Davenport Road and it can be seen from as far south as Wellesley Street.

4 PL160330

[5] The remaining portion of the block to the north is Belmont House, a 7-storey Seniors’ Residential Complex. Belmont House objects to the development on the grounds that it would cause unacceptable adverse impacts on its special needs community.

[6] East of the subject site is the Domus condominium, a 10-storey residential building which fronts onto McAlpine Street, and 3-storey row houses fronting on McMurrich Street. South of the subject site is the 25-storey condominium known as the Florian. The Florian and the Domus were developed by the Applicant. West of the subject site, on the west side of Davenport Road is a 4-storey apartment building, the Jesse Ketchum Park, and the Jesse Ketchum school.

[7] There are three subway stations located within walking distance of the subject site: Bloor/Yonge Station (530 m), Rosedale Station (500 m) and Bay Station (415 m). The stations provide direct access to both the Yonge-University and the Bloor-Danforth lines. The number 6 Bay bus route runs along Bay Street and Davenport Road between DuPont Street and East. It serves Bay Station on the Bloor-Danforth subway line and Union Station on the Yonge-University-Spadina Subway line. The area is well supported by public transportation.

[8] The subject site is designated Mixed-Use Areas on the Land Use Plan (Map 18), which permits a broad range of commercial, residential and institutional uses, as well as parks and open spaces. The lands immediately north and east of the subject site are designated Apartment Neighborhoods; lands to the south and southwest along the Davenport Road frontage, are designated Mixed Use Areas; lands to the east beyond McMurrich Street, and south of Davenport Road, are also designated Mixed Use Areas. Lands north of Belmont Street, the south side of Belmont Street east of McMurrich Street, and west of the properties fronting the west side of Davenport Road, are designated Neighborhoods.

5 PL160330

Application History

[9] Several applications and appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (“Board”) have been filed for the subject site. Starting in 2001, the site was assessed as part of a larger development parcel which included 76 Davenport Road. An application for a 3-storey building was filed along with a proposal for a 28-storey building at 76 Davenport Road. The City refused the applications. The appeal to the City’s decision was dismissed by the Board. In 2004 an application was filed for a 19-storey building at 76 Davenport and a 5-storey building on the subject site. The City failed to make a decision on that application, and in 2006 the Applicant appealed to the Board. The Board approved a 22- storey building at 76 Davenport Road and a 3-storey building at 100 Davenport Road. The Board Decision Davenport Three Develco Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2006 CarswellOnt 3598, 55 O.M.B.R. 157 (“Board Decision 2006”), stated the following as part of the rationale for the decision:

the Board finds that the stepping down in height from 76 to 100 Davenport is reasonable and represents an appropriate transition and fit with the surrounding area.

[10] The opposing parties argued that the Board’s comment on appropriate transition and fit, still reflects the existing and planned context of the area. The current proposal would exceed the height of the Florian (previously 76 Davenport) and would therefore not conform to the Official Plan Site Area Specific Policy 211 (SASP 211), which calls for a transitioning down in height from the Florian building to the lower scale context to the north, east and west.

[11] The City argued that the planning approach to transition in height and density has not changed since the Board Decision 2006, which approved site specific By-law 1331-208. This by-law applies to the combined site at 76 Davenport (the Florian) and 100 Davenport (the subject site). By-law 1331-208 permits two mixed-use buildings on each parcel, with a minimum of 343 square metres (“sq m”) of landscaped outdoor

6 PL160330

space; the maximum height permitted on the subject site is 16.1 m, including mechanical penthouse.

The Proposal

[12] A zoning by-law amendment application was first filed on December 8, 2015 for a 39-storey residential building with height of 132.7 m, excluding mechanical penthouse. The building would contain 53 residential units. The gross floor area was proposed at 18,051.68 sq m, resulting in a floor space index (“FSI”) of approximately 13.98. The application was refused by the City in February 2016.

[13] The objection raised by the City to the proposal was its failure to comply with SASP 211. On that basis, an application for Official Plan Amendment was filed on March 23, 2016. After some discussions with other parties, the Applicant revised the proposal, and it is the revised proposal that is before this Tribunal.

The Revised Proposal

[14] A 29-storey tower on 1,291.7 sq m of land, with an overall height of 106.51 m and a floor plate the size of 527.62 sq m is now proposed. It contains a 3-storey podium with retail and commercial uses, and 56 residential units from the fourth to the 29th floor, consisting of 32 two-bedroom units, 20 two-bedroom plus den, and four 3- bedroom units. There would be total gross floor area of 14,680 m, with FSI of approximately 11.37. The height of the development proposed at 106.51 m includes the mechanical penthouse.

[15] The Boundary streets would be framed by an 11 m high podium. In addition to the retail space, the ground floor would contain a residential lobby, an integrated loading and servicing area, and a ramp to the underground garage. The second floor would be commercial space, and the third floor commercial and residential amenity space. The podium height relates to the existing built form scale of the podium buildings directly to

7 PL160330

the south and east, and the height of the low-rise buildings across from the subject site on Davenport Road and McAlpine Street; vehicular access to the underground garage would be from McAlpine Street, and access to the loading spaces is from Blackmore Street.

[16] The ground floor retail space along the Davenport Road frontage would have access from the public sidewalk along Davenport Road. The pedestrian entrance to the residential tower would be located at the north-westerly corner of the building, facing the intersection of Davenport Road and McAlpine Street.

[17] The ground floor would be setback along Davenport Road, McAlpine Street, and Blackmore Street. Because of the curved design of the building, the ground floor provides a widened pedestrian zone at the intersection of Davenport Road and McAlpine Street. The tower steps back from the podium at the 4th floor and is located at the northwest corner of the site in order to create separation between neighbouring buildings. This arrangement would create open sight lines to the Domus condominium building on the east. There would be a separation distance of approximately 46.15 m between the tower of the proposed development and the Florian Tower to the south, well in excess of the requirement of 25 m. The separation distance between the subject tower and the midrise Domus condominium building would be 5 to 15 m.

THE ISSUES

[18] The Applicant has raised two issues with respect to these appeals. The first asserts that the City has not been consistent in applying the City’s policies and guidelines to this proposal, as they relate to built form, building type, massing and scale, building height, density, urban design and transition/fit. The second issue is whether the architectural quality and cultural heritage significance qualifies the proposed development as an appropriate terminus treatment as specified by the Bloor/North Midtown design guidelines (figure 20).

8 PL160330

[19] ABCRA, GYRA, Belmont House and the City of Toronto (the “opposing parties”) take the position that the appeals should be dismissed because the proposal does not comply with:

• Provincial Statutory and Policy Requirements, the City’s Official Plan and the City’s zoning by-laws.

• Site-specific matters, including the 2006 decision of the Board on the previous application on the subject site. These parties questioned the planning justification to depart from site specific by-law No. 1331-208 with specific height, parking and density provisions, stepping down in height from the Florian to the subject site.

• Built form, building type, massing and scale, building heights, density, urban design as well as transition and fit with adjacent areas, and transition and fit within the urban structure of Bloor-Yorkville North/ Midtown, including shadow impacts on both the public and private realms.

• Consistency with City design guidelines, including the Tall Building Guidelines and the Bloor Yorkville/North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines.

The opposing parties argued that non-compliance with those planning instruments result in impacts such as shadowing on the adjacent neighbourhoods and especially on Belmont House, where there are seniors with special needs who require exposure to sunlight for therapeutic purposes.

• Section 37 matters and appropriate conveyances were also at issue in these appeals.

9 PL160330

[20] The Tribunal heard evidence from the following 10 expert witnesses, called by the party indicated, and from two participants.

1. Robert Glover, Land Use Planner and Urban Designer (Applicant)

2. Lindsay Dale Harris, Land Use Planner (Applicant)

3. Paul Stagl, Land Use Planner (Florian)

4. Oren Tamir, Land Use Planner (City of Toronto)

5. Martin Rendl, Land Use Planner (Belmont House, ABCRA)

6. Alun Lloyd, Transportation Engineer (Applicant)

7. Douglas Cardinal, Architect (Applicant)

8. Andrew Shields, Architect (Applicant)

9. Michael Spaziani Architect (Belmont House, ABCRA)

10. Sonia Ancoli-Israel, Psychologist with expertise on the effects of light exposure on the health on the elderly (Belmont House)

Participants

1. Kevin Sullivan, Owner and Occupant of 110 Davenport

2. Myra Slutsky, Resident of the Domus

Evidence, Argument and Analysis

[21] The Tribunal heard Planning and Urban Design evidence from Robert Glover and Lindsay Dale Harris in support of the applications. These witnesses presented detailed analysis of the policies from planning documents relevant to these applications. These

10 PL160330

include Provincial Policy documents, the City’s Official Plan including SASP 211, Bloor Yorkville /North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines, Tall Building Guidelines and the City’s zoning by-laws.

[22] Mr. Glover and Ms. Dale Harris concluded from their analyses that the proposal represent good planning and should be approved. It was their opinion that the policy framework at the Provincial and City levels support residential intensification on the subject site; that the proposal has regard to the City’s various urban design guidelines; that the proposed development is compatible with the existing and planned context in the immediate vicinity, while respecting the Belmont House senior care facility to the north, Jesse Ketchum School and Jesse Ketchum Park to the east and the low density residential neighbourhoods to the north and west.

[23] ABCRA, GYRA, Belmont House and the City, disagreed. It is their position that the proposal does not constitute good planning or good urban design for the subject site.

[24] These opposing parties argued that the proposal is a complete reversal of the policy direction provided by the City Official Plan and Design Guidelines, which have not changed, as well as a reversal of the direction taken by the same Applicant and its same consultants, and by the Board in 2003 and 2006. The opposing parties concluded that the proposal is inconsistent with and does not conform to applicable provincial policies; does not conform with the intent of the City’s Official Plan and Design Guidelines which build on approved policies of the Official Plan. The development would have unacceptable adverse impacts on Belmont House and its residents, and on the low-rise residential neighborhoods to the north and west.

11 PL160330

Does the architectural quality and cultural heritage significance of the proposal qualify the proposed development as an appropriate terminus treatment as specified by the Bloor Yorkville/North Midtown design guidelines (Figure 20)?

[25] The Applicant has put forward the proposition that the cultural heritage significance and the Architectural quality should be taken into account to qualify the proposed development as the terminus treatment for Bay Street at Davenport Road.

[26] The Tribunal heard evidence that Davenport Road, which extends west from Yonge Street to Old , has historic significance as the alignment of an original indigenous trail along the foot of the escarpment of the old shoreline of Lake Iroquois, which is connected to the through the Rosedale Valley Ravine. The Applicant argued that the proposed development presents an opportunity to mark the importance of Davenport Road as a historic route of the Indigenous Peoples.

[27] Douglas Cardinal, the renowned Architect of several of Canada’s iconic buildings, was retained by the Applicant, along with Andrew Shields, to design the mixed-use residential building on the subject site. Both Architects told the Tribunal that the site occupies a unique position within the City and requires unique architectural treatment.

[28] Mr. Cardinal explained that the building is designed as a natural sculpture, with suitable height and presence, to create a strong visual interest from both the street level and as the view terminus from a distance. The podium is curvilinear, described by Mr. Cardinal as a sculpture of stone and glass, with a slender tower growing out of that foundation. At the street level, this structure would maintain a continuous street frontage on Davenport Road. The design is a celebration of Mr. Cardinal’s unique expression and connection to indigenous culture and heritage.

[29] The Applicant argued that the subject site at the end of Bay Street, one of the most important north-south streets in the City, ought to have a significant view terminus

12 PL160330

as described in Section 4.2.2, Figure 20, under the Bloor Yorkville / Midtown Design Guidelines:

Figure 20 identifies sites that terminate a view corridor and have strategic locations for public or commercial uses. These locations also offer an opportunity to create visual interest from greater distances and if designed with distinction, can act as effective orienting devices as where people can gauge their relative location in the district or city. Treatments can include architectural elements, monuments, and art installations. Hence, terminus sites are especially appropriate for highly animated commercial uses and public buildings.

[30] The City’s position is that there is neither call nor need for a terminus treatment on the subject site. The City argued that the Applicant is proposing to usurp the existing terminus treatment established at 110 Davenport Road, at the north corner of McAlpine Street and Davenport Road. It is the 4-storey building that contains the Myer’s Clock Tower and it is shown on page 26 of the Urban Design Guidelines, Section 3.4, Figure 9. It states:

Figure 9 identifies significant views which should be protected and reinforced, and locations of visual terminus treatments and visual terminus landscapes.

[31] The photographic image of the Myer’s Clock Tower at 110 Davenport is shown in photo 53 on page 27 of the Urban Design Guidelines and is captioned, “Bay Street Terminus Treatment at Davenport and Bay”.

[32] The City argued that the proposition to create a terminus treatment on the subject property does not respect the Bloor/Yorkville North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines. The City’s planning witness led the Tribunal through the relevant portions of the Guidelines. The area covered by these Guidelines extends to to the west, Church Street and the Rosedale Ravine to the east, the CPR tracks to the north and Charles Street to the south. The goal of Bloor/Yorkville North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines is to ensure that the elements which contribute to the special character of the diverse parts of the area are retained and enhanced. There are

13 PL160330

development and design directions specific to the precincts to ensure the development is appropriate to its location.

[33] The subject site is within Davenport Bay Precinct (Section 3.1.3) which includes both sides of Davenport Road from Avenue Road to McMurrich Street. The following excerpt from the Guidelines is a direct reference to the immediate location of the subject site:

3.1.3. The unique sweep of Davenport Road between Avenue Road and the Bay Street intersection provides opportunities for streetscape improvements and enhancement of interesting views. The most significant opportunity for improvement exists at the intersection of Davenport road and Bay Street, which is identified as a gateway area into Bloor-Yorkville.

New development along Davenport road, excluding Davenport Terrace, should maintain a 3 to 5 storey street wall built parallel to the street. Taller portions of proposed buildings between Bay and McMurrich Street, should step back from the Street wall. New development at the intersection of Davenport Road and Bay Street should also (i) be set back two meters to allow for a wider sidewalk and streetscaping and (ii) be massed to preserve the view terminus on the north side of MacAlpine Street (Emphasis added).

[34] There is no doubt, in the Tribunal’s view, that the Myers Clock Tower at the north side of McAlpine Street is recognized and identified in the Guidelines as the view terminus for Bay Street terminating at Davenport. There is also no doubt that the proposal for the subject site, a 29-storey tower with overall height of 106.51 m, would obscure the existing view terminus, which means that it does not accord with the directions of the Bloor/Yorkville North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines to preserve the view terminus.

[35] Regarding the question whether the architectural quality and cultural heritage significance of the proposal qualifies the proposed development as an appropriate terminus treatment, the evidence before this Tribunal is that the subject site is neither historically significant, nor is Davenport Road designated as a cultural landscape.

14 PL160330

[36] The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the City’s Planning witness that the proposal has not been evaluated under Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest and neither the property nor the proposal has been nominated, identified or recognized for cultural heritage significance. The City submits that there is no reason to use this site as a marker for the indigenous trail, because the indigenous trail has been commemorated, in the public realm, in Frank Stollery Parkette, where interpretive panels have been erected.

[37] This view was shared by Land Use Planner Martin Rendl who opined that a tall building is not the only or best way to communicate the link to an historic route of indigenous peoples. In addition, Mr. Rendl notes that the Guidelines clearly state that terminus treatment sites should not be considered as the singular justification for additional height.

[38] There was no hesitation by the opposing parties to acknowledge the architectural quality of the proposal and to recognize Mr. Cardinal as an internationally renowned architect. That said, Counsel for ABCRA and GYRA drew to the attention of this panel, Member Schiller’s statement in Board Decision 2006, that the Board’s decisions ought to observe principles of good community planning and not “planning by personality”. This panel agrees and adopts Member Schiller’s statement, and finds that the proposal must be assessed on its planning merits and not on its architectural qualities, of which there is no debate.

[39] The Opposing parties argue that the proposal is not consistent with good planning. It does not conform to the in-force policies of the City’s Official Plan. Height, density and massing are in excess of what is prescribed by the City’s zoning by-laws for a commercial residential district and it is inappropriate in its context.

15 PL160330

Height and Context

[40] The proposed 29 storey building at 106.51 m high, is the central issue for all the opposing parties. This building would exceed the height of the Florian, the 25-storey building immediately to the south, a development pattern that would offend the policies of SASP 211. Policy 211 of the Official Plan sets out its context:

…It forms the north edge of the Downtown and provides for transition in density and scale towards the boundaries of the area from the more intensive use and development forms to the south and within the Height Peak at Yonge and Bloor Streets shown on Map 2. This transition is important to reinforce the diversity of built form and use, to foster the stability of Neighborhoods, and to minimize conflicts between the commercial or mixed use areas and residential neighborhoods

[41] The subject site is within the Mixed Use Area. The intended character of specific areas and the planned transition in heights, use, and built form are prescribed in Policy 211: the tallest buildings in the Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown Area are to be located in the “Height Peak” area in the vicinity of the intersection of Bloor and Yonge streets; building heights step down from the Bloor/Yonge Street intersection within the mixed use area descending in height through the Height Ridges. Policy 211 goes on to state that the lowest heights in the Bloor-Yorkville/Midtown Area are in the Neighbourhoods; development in Mixed Use Areas adjacent or near to these low rise areas will be designed to adequately limit shadow, wind and privacy impacts upon these lower scale areas through distance separation and a transition in scale including means such as angular planes and step downs in heights.

[42] The Applicant had applied for an official Plan amendment but maintained that the proposal is appropriate and constitutes good planning even within the current planning framework. The Tribunal agrees with Architect and Urban design consultant Michael Spaziani that the placement of the tallest built form at the northern edge of the subject site, is contrary to the concept established by SASP 211 of gradual reduction of height from south to north as it extends away from the Height Peaks and Height Ridges.

16 PL160330

[43] The Applicant argued that SASP 211 is not strictly observed and the City is inconsistent in applying its policies and guidelines. The City’s planning witness testified that transition sometimes differ to achieve a more intensive development where appropriate, but in those instances, fit is considered, and where there is minimal impact deviating from the policy, the City may consider it.

[44] The question for this panel to consider is whether it is appropriate in this case, to deviate from SASP 211. Is the proposal a good fit in such close proximity to the lower scale buildings north and east of the subject site? The Tribunal finds that it is not.

[45] There are several OP policies which recognize the importance to contain the impacts from tall buildings on adjacent residential neighbourhoods. The objective of those policies is to ensure stability and general amenity for the residential areas.

[46] The opposing parties argued that departure from the policy framework by the proposal at the height and scale proposed, would result in unacceptable impacts on the adjacent areas; there would be unnecessary shadowing, privacy impacts and unacceptable mass. With respect to shadow impacts, the main concern is for Belmont House.

[47] Since 1860, Belmont House has owned and operated a retirement home and long-term-care facility on the block immediately north of the subject site. The operation at Belmont House includes a long-term-care facility with 140 nursing home beds, and a retirement home with 81 suites and apartments. Residents range in age from 60 to 106 years of age. These individuals have varying levels of abilities and disabilities. There are residents with significant cognitive impairments who are confined to secure living facilities and to communal areas. Many have significant mobility restrictions. The evidence is that their ability to enjoy sunlight is limited to what they can experience from their own bedrooms or from communal facilities indoors. Belmont House has been renovated with large windows, terraces, and communal areas, to maximize exposure to light from the south and west.

17 PL160330

[48] Belmont House called Dr. Ancoli-Israel, a qualified and noted specialist in the field of light exposure on the elderly. Dr. Ancoli-Israel testified that exposure to bright light is necessary for the health of older adults, and it can be obtained from the sun and or high intensity lighting. Retrofitting Belmont House for high intensity lighting, in her opinion, would be prohibitively expensive and therefore the best way for the residents to get light is from the sun. It was her observation that the sunlight coming through a window is very beneficial.

[49] Dr. Ancoli-Israel testified that light, is especially important for older persons who are incapacitated and can’t spend sufficient time outdoors. She spoke of the importance morning light especially, to set the circadian rhythms in older women and men. Insufficient light puts these individuals at greater risk of depression and decreased physical function. Dr. Ancoli-Israel related findings from various studies on that subject, which support her observations.

[50] The shadow studies presented in evidence indicate that the proposed development would cause incremental shadow impacts on both internal and external areas of Belmont House between one to two hours in duration on March 21 and September 21.

[51] The Applicant argued that the incremental shadow impacts from the proposed development on the existing Belmont House buildings and its open space areas, would be limited and acceptable in terms of duration and effect; it would not adversely affect the overall function of the building internally or its exterior open spaces. Belmont House advised the Tribunal that neither the Applicant nor its Consultants have had a site tour of the facility, even at the invitation of Belmont House, and would have no way of knowing the impact of the proposed development on Belmont House’s operations.

[52] The Applicant argued that there is no special protection for Belmont House over and above what is expected in Apartment Neighbourhoods, and the shadow studies

18 PL160330

indicate that impact from the proposal is reasonable and acceptable within this urban context.

[53] The facility and the occupants of Belmont are not commonplace in Apartment Neighbourhoods, and what may be reasonable and acceptable in the average Apartment Neighbourhood cannot be the standard in this situation. The residents at Belmont House are more vulnerable, less independent and less mobile. Belmont House has presented uncontradicted evidence that this development would change the conditions necessary for the health and well-being of its residents. Good planning principles should prevail to protect the residents in these circumstances.

[54] The Tribunal finds that the impact on Belmont House from this development is imposed by its non-compliance with the Official Plan policies and the design guidelines. The placement of the tower at the northern edge of the subject site is contrary to the Official Plan which calls for gradual reduction from south to north. A different placement and lower height would mitigate the impact of this tall building. It is not appropriate in the proposed location. The visual evidence demonstrates it would physically and visually overwhelm the adjacent neighbourhood. This 29-storey building would be across a neighbourhood street, McAlpine, from the 4-storey building at 110 Davenport Road, the 7-storey Belmont House, and it would be separated from the Domus condominium building by 5 to 6 metres. Privacy of its residents would be compromised. It is not a form that is compatible with the low scale of the adjacent neighbourhood. It does not fit well.

[55] The Official Plan states that tall buildings come with larger civic responsibilities and obligations than other buildings. To ensure that tall buildings fit within their existing context and limit local impacts, additional built form principles will be applied to the location and the design of the tall building. The proposed development and site design does not demonstrate that it relates to the existing context.

19 PL160330

[56] The Tribunal has considered the Applicant’s argument that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the Growth Plan; both documents support intensification within built up urban areas, especially areas within an 800 metres radius from Transit stations. The subject site is well within that distance of three higher order transit stations.

[57] The Tribunal finds that in respect to those high-level policies, the proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan. However, both documents recognize that the Official Plan is the effective vehicle for implementation. Policy 2.2.2.4 of the Growth Plan provide that municipalities will develop a strategy to achieve intensification throughout delineated built-up areas, which will identify the appropriate type and scale of development and transition of built form to adjacent areas, and these strategies will be implemented through official plan policies and designations, updated zoning and other supporting documents.

[58] The tribunal finds that the proposal is not the appropriate type and scale of development for the subject site and it does not create an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas. The City and the other opposing parties submit that there are alternative built forms that would accommodate the modest intensification of the 56 residential units which the Applicant seeks to achieve on the subject site, that would conform with the Official Plan, which itself conforms to the Growth Plan and is consistent with the PPS.

[59] In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal has considered and has had regard to the decision of Council on this matter.

[60] The Tribunal finds that the proposal does not conform to the Official Plan; it is inconsistent with the Bloor Yorkville /North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines; it does not fit within the existing and planned context for Bloor-Yorkville/North Midtown Area; it creates unacceptable adverse impacts on Belmont House.

20 PL160330

[61] It is for all these reasons that the Tribunal finds the proposed development does not constitute good planning.

[62] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“K.J. Hussey”

K.J. HUSSEY VICE-CHAIR

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248