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