planning act council’s neglect to enact a proposed ... · south from her building’s eighth...
TRANSCRIPT
PL120593
Larkwood Developments Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council’s neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 7625 of the former City of North York to rezone lands respecting 847-873 Sheppard Avenue West to permit the development a nine-storey mixed-use building fronting onto Sheppard Avenue West with a density of 3.0 times the area O.M.B. File No.: PL120594 Larkwood Developments Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council’s neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto to redesignate lands respecting 847-873 Sheppard Avenue West to permit the development of two nine-storey mixed-use buildings Approval Authority File No. 09 187447 NNY 10 OZ O.M.B. File No.: PL120593 A P P E A R A N C E S : Parties Counsel Larkwood Developments Inc. City of Toronto
Paul De Melo Sarah O’Connor
DECISION DELIVERED BY R. ROSSI
[1] Larkwood Developments Inc., the Applicant/Appellant (Applicant), has applied to
the Ontario Municipal Board (Board) for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to
permit construction of a nine-storey residential building comprised of two elements and
joined by an underground garage at 847-873 Sheppard Avenue West in the City of
Toronto (City).
[2] Paul De Melo represented the Applicant and Antonio Volpentesta, who was
qualified to provide planning evidence in this case, appeared in support of the
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario
ISSUE DATE:
October 25, 2012
- 2 - PL120593
application. Sarah O’Connor represented the City and City planner Christian Ventresca
accompanied her.
[3] A number of area residents spoke in opposition to the proposed development,
citing issues of proximity, loss of privacy and property values as well as the proposed
height.
[4] The parties advised the Board that they proposed to present the Board with a
settlement of this matter but they requested an adjournment for two days in order to
permit Toronto City Council to review the terms of the settlement, which comprises an
Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment and a s. 37 agreement.
[5] At the hearing on the first day, the Board received contextual evidence and heard
residents’ concerns with the proposal. The proposed development is a 14-property
assembly and 0.93 hectares in size. Its depth is 47.4 metres and it has significant
frontage along Sheppard Avenue West. The subject property is east of the Downsview
subway station. This stretch of Sheppard Avenue West is subject to the policies of the
Sheppard West/Dublin Secondary Plan, which anticipates this type of growth and
development. There are many examples of these mid-rise, seven-to-nine-storey
residential buildings along Sheppard Avenue West with densities of between 2.8 and
3.5 times being common. This is a mature residential community that is in transition
and much of the growth is being accommodated along this stretch of Sheppard Avenue
West. The houses along Norcross Road to the south are generally post-war vintage
houses whose rear yards abut the subject property.
[6] Mr. Volpentesta explained that this is actually a single building whose two
residential components are connected by the underground parking area. The building
has eight storeys of residential units while the upper storeys of both elements will
contain only amenity space and the mechanical elements.
[7] Through a combination of setbacks and angular planes that will protect and
mitigate overview and privacy impacts, the proposed development achieves the City’s
requirement that the development respect the 45-degree angular plane, which results in
the nine-storey building.
- 3 - PL120593
[8] In terms of landscaping and privacy issues, the proponent met with residents and
provided detailed plans of how the rear yards of Norcross Road residents appear today
(looking north to the subject site) and to what these residents’ views would change post
development. Plantings are proposed and some mature trees will be protected (such as
notching of the underground parking area to protect roots) in a manner that will
accommodate the development while mitigating issues of privacy and overlook as much
as one can in this dense urban environment. At the resumption of the hearing three
days later, Counsel Sarah O’Connor for the City advised the Board that the s. 37
agreement will contain specific reference to the City’s requirement that the proposed
development respect the angular plane – the control mechanism that controls issues of
overlook, privacy and views – and the landscaping will contribute further to the
proponent’s efforts to mitigate these impacts.
[9] Some 297 residential units and 13 live/work suites will be built and under the
rental replacement component of this proposal, the proponent will offer seven rental
suites in the ground floor of the eastern building.
[10] This is designated Mixed Use Areas in the City’s Official Plan. As the secondary
plan allows for two times density and five storeys of height, the application proposes to
amend the secondary plan.
[11] In terms of the residents’ other concerns, some included design issues that
would have materially and substantially changed the proposed design that formed part
of the settlement with the City and these elements could not be considered. A resident
who resides across the street advised that the proposed building would block views
south from her building’s eighth floor amenity space. The Board notes that the width of
Sheppard Avenue West in this area is very wide and the Board is not persuaded that
the placement of a building across the street that has one floor higher than the
resident’s building is sufficient reason to lower the height, particularly where the
proponent’s design respects the requirement of the provision of a 45-degree angular
plane.
[12] The owner of a house immediately adjacent to the east side of the subject
property is concerned with heavy construction that might drive away clients of her
home-based acupuncture service and concerned with how close a two-storey
- 4 - PL120593
component of the new building will be sited from her property line at 2.1 metres. The
balance of the building is 5.1 metres from her property line. The Board notes, however,
that existing zoning performance standard for this site would permit construction of a
house to a height of eight metres with a setback of only 1.8 metres. What the Applicant
proposes is a condition far less impactful than what the as of right condition allows. The
Board was also not persuaded that this proposal is different or distinct from the
examples of other mid-rise development that occurs in the City’s Mixed Use Areas
where mid-rise buildings sit proximate and adjacent to low-rise built forms.
[13] Another homeowner east of the property expressed concern with property
values, citing various examples of how some Norcross Road and nearby property
owners are selling their homes for less than the asking price. He attributed this to
buyers learning that the property to the north will be developed and overlooks their rear
yards. The Board was not persuaded that the resident established a link between the
lowered prices and the subject application; nor is the Board persuaded that the
proposed development should be turned down because the adjacent property owner
might wish to sell his property in the future. And, as cited above, respect for the angular
plane and the provision of landscaping will alleviate this concern with overlook and
privacy.
[14] On consent, the Board adjourned the proceedings so that City Council could
consider the proposed settlement. The Board reconvened this matter three days later
on October 4, 2012 and received settlement details and additional expert opinion
evidence.
[15] Mr. Volpentesta opined that the proposal and the implementing planning
instruments as approved by City Council during the adjournment of these matters are
consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform with the Growth Plan. The
proposal constitutes good planning; it complies with the built form and land use polices
of the City of Toronto Official Plan; it complies with the goals of the secondary plan save
for those portions that requirement amendments.
[16] The Board also heard that the resulting amendments achieved through a
settlement of this matter with the City follow the form of other By-laws approved for
development along this corridor of Sheppard Avenue West.
- 5 - PL120593
The parties have asked the Board to withhold its Order pending provision of the final
form of the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and finalization of the
content of the s. 37 agreement.
[17] Based on the evidence before it and the uncontradicted evidence of the
Applicant’s planner, the Board allows the appeals and approves in principle the DRAFT
FORMS of the proposed Official Plan Amendment in Exhibit 5, Tab 11 (final form is
Attachment 1 to this Decision), the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in Exhibit 5,
Tab 12 (final form is Attachment 2 to this Decision) and the proposed s. 37 agreement
also in Exhibit 5, Tab 12 (final form is Attachment 3 to this Decision).
[18] The Board may be spoken to leading to the provision of the final form of the
aforementioned documents.
“R. Rossi” R. Rossi MEMBER
- 6 - PL120593
- 7 - PL120593
- 8 - PL120593
- 9 - PL120593
- 10 - PL120593
- 11 - PL120593
- 12 - PL120593
- 13 - PL120593
- 14 - PL120593
- 15 - PL120593
- 16 - PL120593
- 17 - PL120593
- 18 - PL120593
- 19 - PL120593
- 20 - PL120593
- 21 - PL120593
- 22 - PL120593