Referred by: 109 Ossington Ltd.

Subject: Site Plan

Legislative Authority: Subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
P.13, as amended
Property Address/Description: 103, 109-111 Ossington Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
OMB Case No.: PL121360
OMB File No.: PL121360


109 Ossington Ltd. 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 Councils neglect
to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, of the former
City of Toronto to rezone lands respecting 103, 109-111 Ossignton Avenue to permit
the development of a six-storey mixed-use building
O.M.B. File No.: PL121360


APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

109 Ossington Ltd (Reserve
Properties Inc.)
D. Bronskill


City of Toronto A. Hill


Ossington Community Association C. Campbell

L. Bowman





Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales
de lOntario
ISSUE DATE: June 12, 2014 CASE NO(S).: PL121360

HEARING EVENT INFORMATION:

Hearing: Held in Toronto, Ontario on November 5-15,
2013
2 PL121360


DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JASON CHEE-HING


INTRODUCTION

[1] 109 Ossington Ltd (Applicant/Appellant and Proponent) filed appeals
against the City of Toronto (City) Councils neglect to approve a proposed Zoning By-
law Amendment (ZBA) for the property located at 103, 109-11 Ossington Avenue
(Ossington). The site plan was also referred to this Board.
[2] The proposed ZBA would permit the development of a six-storey mixed use
building comprising of a ground floor retail/commercial component, 86 residential units
and two levels of below grade parking. The building will have a height of 21.5 m with a
screened mechanical penthouse having a height of 3.5 m, resulting in a total height of
25 m. Indoor and outdoor amenity space is proposed and a green roof is proposed
above the 6
th
floor. The mixed use building will front onto Ossington and backs onto a
public lane (Argyle Place).
[3] The subject property is located on the east side of Ossington between Dundas
and Queen Streets. The property has an area of approximately 1906 sq m, depth of 41
m and a frontage of 46 m along Ossington. The property backs onto a public lane called
Argyle Place. The existing two-storey buildings on the site which contained light
industrial/commercial uses would be demolished.
The Revised Proposal
[4] On the fifth day of the scheduled eight day hearing, and during the testimony of
the proponents expert witnesses, the proponent submitted a revised proposal (Exhibits
11, 12) upon which expert evidence was given and tested in cross-examination by the
Ossington Community Association (OCA).
[5] Revisions included the following:
1. Reduction in height to top of roof to 20 m;
2. Relocation of the mechanical penthouse on the roof so as not to protrude
from the deep lot angular plane;
3 PL121360


3. A cap on maximum retail floor size to 500 sq m;
4. Increased step-backs at the rear of the building at the fifth and sixth floors to
achieve a better compliance with the deep lot angular plane at the rear;
5. Increases to indoor and adjacent outdoor amenity space.
[6] The applicable Zoning by-law No. 438-86 (ZBL) measures height to the top of
roof and excludes the mechanical penthouse. It is this revised proposal for which the
Board will give its findings.
[7] At the hearing, the proponent called four expert witnesses with expertise in land
use planning, transportation planning, shadow analysis and urban design. The City
called two expert witnesses with expertise in land use planning and urban design. The
OCA called one expert witness with expertise in land use planning and six lay
witnesses/participants who gave evidence on neighbourhood impact. There were two
participants who spoke in support of the proposal. The hearing lasted eight days.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The Proponent
[8] The proponent called four expert witnesses with expertise in planning,
transportation/traffic impacts, shadow analysis, and urban design in support of the
revised proposal.
[9] Craig Hunter, a qualified planner, testified that the subject site is under-utilized
and created a notable gap in the streetscape along Ossington. He gave the opinion that
the site represents an ideal intensification opportunity for an attractive six-storey mid-
rise and mixed use residential/retail development which would be compatible with the
built forms along Ossington. It is his planning opinion that the proposal would not create
adverse impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Hunter gave the opinion that
Ossington has a main street character, which is a major street with a planned 20 m
right of way (ROW) and comparable with other main streets such as Queen, College
and Dundas Streets. All of which are designated Mixed Use Areas in the Citys OP and
adjacent to low-rise residential neighbourhoods.

4 PL121360


[10] Mr. Hunter gave the opinion that the Citys planning staff in its direction report of
May 16, 2013, was substantively supporting a six-storey (20 m), mixed used
redevelopment on this site which must comply with the deep angular plane.
[11] He shares the opinion of Anne McIlroy, urban design expert, that it is appropriate
to evaluate the proposal using the Citys Mid-Rise Design Guidelines. He testified that
the Citys planners used these guidelines in evaluating the subject proposal. It is his
opinion that the six-storey proposed development is appropriate for the subject site and
is an attractive mixed use development that would fit in well with the streetscape
character of Ossington and the adjacent low-rise residential neighbourhood. He gave
the opinion that the proposed ZBA to implement the proposal conforms to the built form
policies of the OP.
[12] Anne McIlroy is a qualified urban designer. She gave the opinion that the
proposed building provides an appropriate form of intensification on a major street near
the downtown and the building contains appropriate stepbacks, separation distances
and maintains with minimal protrusions a deep lot angular plane which mitigates
shadows and overlook on the adjacent residential neighbourhood to the east of the
subject site.
[13] Ms. McIlroy made reference to the adjacent six-storey (21.5 m) mid-rise/mixed
use development at 41 Ossington where a settlement was reached between the City
and the proponent and approved recently by this Board. It is her opinion that from an
urban design perspective the proposed development relates better contextually to the
neighbourhood than the approved development at 41 Ossington. It is her opinion that
the proposal meets the Citys Mid-Rise Guidelines and the building design is
contemporary, highly articulated and incorporates good urban design principles.
[14] Ralph Bowmeester, a qualified civil engineer conducted a shadow assessment
study of the impacts of the proposal on the adjacent residential neighbourhood
immediately east of the subject site. Mr. Bowmeester compared the proposal at 21.5 m
in building height to the City supported 20 m height proposal. He gave the opinion that
the shadow impacts of the proposal at 21.5 m to be minimal and incremental over what
was supported by the Citys planning department in 2013 (Exhibits 8A-B). Mr.
Bowmeesters evidence was based on the proposal at 21.5 m and not the revised 20 m
proposal that was submitted by the proponent later during the hearing. The shadow
impacts would be less with the revised proposal.
5 PL121360


[15] Alun Lloyd, a qualified transportation engineer conducted a traffic analysis of the
impacts of the proposed development on the local streets. It is his opinion that the local
streets including the rear public lane would accommodate the traffic generated by the
proposal. He testified that Argyle Place at 6.1 m in width is a standard size laneway in
the City. He testified that the proposed parking supply is appropriate for the
development and noted that the site is centrally located and well served by public
transit.
The City
[16] Following the submission of the modified proposal, the Citys expert witnesses
Franco Romano (planner) and Ran Chen (urban designer) testified to the Board that
the modifications made addressed their concerns and they were generally in support of
the proposal as modified.
[17] Mr. Romano, a qualified planner, testified that the modifications addressed the
planning concerns he had with the original six-storey 21.5 m proposal. He testified that
the reduction in height to 20 m, the relocation of the mechanical penthouse, and the
increased step-back on the upper floors have resulted in less protrusion into the deep
lot angular plane such that in his opinion the overlook and privacy issues were
sufficiently mitigated. Mr. Romano gave the planning opinion that the modifications
resulted in an improved transition with the existing streetscape and better reflect the
existing and planned context for Ossington. It is his opinion that the modifications were
a good compromise and represented good planning.
[18] Ms. Chen, a qualified urban designer, was generally satisfied with the design
modifications made to the front faade and the reductions in protrusions to the deep lot
angular plane at the rear. She continued to have concerns with the vertical articulation
of the front faade not being consistent with the horizontal aesthetic and rhythm of the
streetscape on the east side of Ossington. Ms. Chen was satisfied with the conditions
that the front faade articulation and materiality of the first three floors and the
materiality of the fifth and sixth floor balconies would be finalized at the site plan
approval stage to the satisfaction of the Citys urban design department.


6 PL121360


The OCA
[19] The OCAs representatives remained opposed to the revised proposal
characterizing the modifications as minor and that the impacts to the streetscape along
Ossington and to the adjacent residential neighbourhood continue to be unacceptable.
[20] Terry Mills, a qualified planner, testified that the revised proposal continues to be
inappropriate for Ossington and is an over-sized development for the site which conflicts
with the existing and planned context. It would adversely impact the residential
neighbourhood to the east in terms of overlook, privacy and shadows. He testified that
that Ossington is not an Avenue and that the Mid-Rise Guidelines were never intended
to apply to non-Avenues nor is it an intensification area. The revised proposal at 20 m
contravenes the existing 14.0 m height limit. He noted that the streetscape character is
one of three-storey built forms which is well below this height threshold.
[21] Mr. Mills described Ossington as a traditional Toronto main street lined with small
scaled properties of two and three-storey small retail establishments. The proposal is in
his opinion, a quantum leap greater in magnitude than the surrounding context (Exhibit
19, Tab 1). The ground floor retail component is in his opinion not appropriately defined
in terms of size and scale and could without division accommodate a large retail store to
the detriment of the small retail stores on Ossington. He gave the opinion that if the
building were of a reduced scale and density, with appropriate setbacks and stepbacks
that an acceptable solution could be achieved.
[22] Mr. Mills expressed concerns over the rear laneway. It is his opinion that Argyle
Place with increased vehicular traffic represents a potential safety hazard to pedestrians
that use the laneway as a route to get to their homes. Argyle Place has no sidewalks. In
his opinion the laneway is inadequate to accommodate the anticipated increase traffic
volumes if this proposal (and potentially other condominium developments) is approved.
He referred the Board to other soft sites that backs onto Argyle Place that could
potentially be re-developed as midrise condominiums buildings. He called for a
dedicated pedestrian footpath along Argyle Place to address safety concerns and
suggested a 1.5 m easement at the rear of the subject site for such a footpath.


7 PL121360


The Lay Witnesses/Participants
[23] Six participants (Penny Carter, Eileen Denny, Stephen Colville-Reeves, Jamie
Angell, Olga Ferreira, and Jessica Wilson) spoke in opposition to the revised proposal.
Collectively, their evidence was congruent with the planning evidence given by the
OCAs planner.
[24] Ms. Wilson, a nearby resident and president of the OCA, was concerned about
the adverse impacts of larger buildings on the small scale character of Ossington. It is
her lay opinion that the OP does not direct growth to this area. Ms. Olga Ferreira, a
resident who lives immediately east of the subject site is concerned about garbage
collection, traffic and shadow impacts on her rear yard. She testified that at present
there is no snow removal from the lane. Ms. Denny of the Confederation of Resident
and Ratepayers Association in Toronto (CORRA) was more concerned about the
impacts of the Citys OP policies on where intensification should occur. She gave the
opinion that the OP directs growth to identified areas in the City and Ossington is not an
area identified for intensification. Stephen Colville-Reeves, a local developer gave the
opinion that the proposal threatens the tapestry and uniform streetscape of Ossington.
[25] Two participants (Harry Kondratas, Brian Sharwood) spoke in support of the
revised proposal. Mr. Kondratas a local resident has lived in the area for over 60 years
and testified that he has witnessed the changing character of Ossington from a light
industrial working class, tough neighbourhood to a gentrified and popular street with
trendy restaurants and bars. He supported the proposal noting that the existing
buildings on Ossington are old and in need of replacement.
[26] Mr. Sharwood lives in the neighbourhood and participated in the visioning
meetings that were held to provide input into the Ossington Avenue Planning Study. He
gave the opinion that Ossington is evolving and the proposed mix use development at
six-storeys is a modest proposal that would add to the character of Ossington. He was
particularly concerned about the misinformation being spread by those against the
proposed development. He characterized the OCA as being anti-development.
BOARD FINDINGS AND REASONS
[27] The Board considered all of the evidence (both expert and lay) and the
submissions made by counsel in making its findings.
8 PL121360


[28] The Board finds that the revised proposal found in Exhibits 11 and 12 to be
acceptable. It is the Boards overall finding that the revised proposal would be
compatible with the surrounding built forms on Ossington and would not adversely
impact the residential neighbourhood to the east. The design aesthetic of this six-storey
building will fit in harmoniously with the existing streetscape and aesthetic of Ossington.
The Board finds that the building height at six-storeys and 20 m (excluding the
mechanical penthouse) will be compatible with surrounding built forms on both sides of
Ossington. The Board finds the proposed density to be appropriate. The indoor and
outdoor amenity space being proposed is acceptable. The Board finds that the
proposed ZBA as modified to reflect the revised proposal will conform to the Citys OP.
[29] Ossington has evolved from having a light industrial and commercial character
during the 1960s to the 1990s to the present day very vibrant mixed use area
populated by retail stores, restaurants, bars, commercial office space and residential
condominiums. It is the Boards view that from an urban design perspective, the
proposed mixed use six-storey building will fit in harmoniously and add to the urban
design aesthetic of present day Ossington.
[30] It is the Boards view that adverse impacts to the neighbourhood would be
minimal. Particularly, in terms of overlook and shadowing, the Board finds that revised
proposal will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts onto the homes on the east
side of Argyle Place.
[31] Specifically, it is the Boards finding that with respect to the deep lot angular
plane performance standard, the revised proposal achieves the intent of this
performance standard and that the encroachments into the deep lot angular plane are
minimal. The revisions to the step-backs on the fifth and sixth floors have resulted in the
proposal achieving greater compliance with the deep lot angular plane. But for the fifth
and sixth floor balconies and part of the units facing the rear of the subject site, the
revised proposal will achieve full compliance with the deep lot angular plane.
[32] In this regard the Board finds that overlook from the upper floors to be minimal
and not unacceptable. It is the Boards view that within compact inner-city
neighbourhoods, some overlook, noise and shadow impacts are to be expected. These
are urban conditions that exist as part of living within a compact urban environment. The
Ossington neighbourhood is an example of a compact inner-city neighbourhood in
Toronto.
9 PL121360


[33] With respect to shadow impacts on the homes to the east of the site, the Board
finds this impact to be minimal. Shadow impacts will be mainly to the detached garages
and part of the rear yards of the homes to the east. In this regard, the Board prefers the
shadow impact evidence of Mr. Bowmeester. The OCA did not call any expert evidence
to contradict or challenge Mr. Bowmeester.
[34] With respect to the proposed building height, the Board finds the height of the
building at 20 m (six-storeys) to be acceptable and is compatible with the existing built
forms on both sides of Ossington at this location. The Board finds that there will be no
unacceptable adverse impacts as a result of one additional storey over what is
permitted as-of-right under the applicable ZBL for Ossington.
[35] In making its finding on height, the Board noted the evidence of Mr. Rees, the
Citys planner under summons by the OCA and the author of the Ossington Planning
Study which at the date of this hearing was not yet approved by City Council. This Study
informed the future planned context for Ossington. Mr. Rees under cross-examination
by Mr. Bronskill stated that he had no concerns with the proposal at six-storeys in height
and that his concern is with the entire block of Area 2 being six-storeys. Mr. Rees under
cross-examination by Ms. Hill testified that initially, the Study recommended a six-storey
height limit for Area 2 but was revised downward to five-storeys following extensive
community consultation. The subject site is in Area 2.
[36] The Board also took into consideration the evidence of Mr. Mills, planner for the
OCA who under cross-examination by Mr. Bronskill stated that a six-storey building at
18 m in height excluding the mechanical penthouse is acceptable to him.
[37] The Citys planning and urban design expert witnesses (Mr. Romano and Ms.
Chen) were satisfied with the revisions made to the proposal and had no objections to
the revised proposal. Mr. Romano under cross-examination by Mr. Campbell stated
that the revised proposal represents a better transition to the surrounding built forms
and better reflects the existing and planned context for Ossington and was an
acceptable compromise that represented good planning. Additionally, the Board notes
that the Citys planning staff report of May 16, 2013 recommended support of a revised
proposal with a reduction in height to 20 m. The Citys expert witnesses support of the
revised proposal was an important consideration for the Board in making its findings.

10 PL121360


[38] The Board notes that when the revised proposal was presented as a settlement
to the Board on the fifth day of the hearing, Ms. Hill informed the Board that the City was
in support of the revised proposal/settlement. The City found the proposed modifications
acceptable but for conditions with respect to the proposed front faade articulation and
materiality and upper floor balconies materiality being to the satisfaction of the Citys
urban design department.
[39] However, during closing submissions, on the eighth and final day of the hearing,
Ms. Hills position changed to commending the planning and urban design evidence of
the Citys expert witnesses to this Board. In her closing submissions, Ms. Hill offered the
explanation that she could not support the settlement as her directions from City Council
were to support a settlement only if all the parties had agreed to it. Nonetheless, it is
trite to state that the Board based its findings after considering all the planning evidence
and submissions given and the merits of the proposal.
[40] On the matter of whether an OPA is required for this proposal the Board does not
accept the arguments of OCAs counsel and the lay evidence of Ms. Denny,
spokesperson for CORRA that the OP directs growth only to Avenues. The OP must
be read as a whole and Ossington which is designated as a mixed use area is an area
designated for growth. City planning staff did not direct the proponent to file an OPA for
its proposal at time of application. The Board finds that an OPA is not required.
[41] The Board does not agree with the evidence and submissions of the OCA that
the proposal is an attempt to shoehorn a larger project on the site. The revised proposal
will in the Boards view fit harmoniously within the existing physical context along
Ossington and it is not an overdevelopment of the site.
[42] The Board finds that the Mid-Rise Guidelines are the appropriate guidelines to
apply in reviewing this proposal. In this regard, the Board prefers the testimony of Ms.
McIlroy who stated that although Ossington is not classified as an Avenue it exhibits the
characteristics of an Avenue as defined in the Citys Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings
Study. Her testimony on the application of the Mid-Rise Guidelines in the Boards view
was uncontroverted and withstood the scrutiny of opposing counsel.
[43] On the matter of limiting the maximum retail store size to 500 sq m for the
proposed ground floor retail space, the Board finds this to be a reasonable compromise
of ensuring smaller retail establishments to locate within the ground floor thereby
11 PL121360


promoting the location of small retail establishments along Ossington.
[44] Given the potential for the redevelopment of the soft sites in this block (Area 2)
which is served by the rear laneway the Board is concerned with the safety of
pedestrians using the laneway. Being a lane, there are no sidewalks on Argyle Place.
Increased vehicular traffic on the lane from this proposed development and the potential
future redevelopment of other soft sites give rise to safety concerns for pedestrians. It
was the evidence of several participants and Mr. Mills that the lane is used by local
residents.
[45] During the hearing, there was considerable discussion on the need for the City to
have a clear policy direction and coordinated approach with dealing with pedestrian
safety on the lane. This should include the feasibility of placing a clearly marked
footpath for pedestrians on the lane given the long term implications of increased
residential development of this block. The proponent has indicated his willingness to
locate a 1.5 m strip on the eastern edge of his property to be used as a pedestrian
walkway as a condition of site plan approval. It is the Boards finding that this easement
is to be made a condition of site plan approval.
[46] All parties agreed that pedestrian safety on the lane is an important
consideration. The City indicated that it has to examine the long term implications of
locating a continuous pedestrian walkway/footpath on the rear of other properties that
back onto the lane and how this can best be implemented. During the site plan process,
the Board encourages the City to investigate the feasibility of placing a 1.5 m strip for a
pedestrian footpath alongside the lane between Argyle and Bruce Streets.
CONCLUSION
[47] For all the reasons given, the Board will approve the revised proposal as detailed
in Exhibits 11 and 12 subject to the Board findings. The proponent will submit more
design details on the vertical articulation and materiality of the front faade and the
materiality of the fourth and fifth floor balconies to the satisfaction of the City during the
site plan approval stage. The proponent has offered a 1.5 m strip at the rear of the site
as an easement to be used as a pedestrian footpath. This will be a condition of site plan
approval. The City is strongly encouraged to explore the feasibility of placing a
continuous 1.5 m pedestrian footpath alongside the entire length of Argyle Place
between Argyle and Bruce Streets.
12 PL121360


[48] For all the reasons given, it is the decision of the Board that:
1. With respect to the zoning appeal, the appeal against ZBL No. 438-86 of the
City of Toronto is allowed in part, and the Board directs the proponent to
revise the proposed ZBA based on the revised plans and specifications found
in Exhibit 11 and 12 in a form consistent with the Citys drafting standards.
2. With respect to the site plan referral, the site plan approval will be withheld
pending finalization of the details of the site plan to be consistent with the
revised proposal and execution of the site plan agreement.
[49] The Board will withhold its Order pending written confirmation by the City that the
final form and content of the ZBL is acceptable and written confirmation by the City that
a site plan agreement has been executed and registered.
[50] The Board can be spoken to if there are any difficulties in finalizing the details of
the site plan.




Jason Chee-Hing


JASON CHEE-HING
MEMBER










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