Why a city rule means this former 17-unit Forest Hill apartment building can’t be used as an apartment building

Thestar.com
Dec. 7, 2021
Victoria Gibson

In Toronto’s tony Forest Hill neighbourhood sits a ramshackle, century-old apartment block.

Its dark wood doors are encased by stately stone arches, but the windowpanes inside them are missing or shattered, with shards of glass jutting out and open bits boarded with plywood.

For more than a decade, the complex has sat vacant like this at 467 Spadina Rd. -- and inside, the newest owner says, is the skeleton of its former life as a 17-unit apartment building, with framing and fireplaces for the old two-bedrooms still visible.

That’s what Avi Glina, founder of real estate investment company SpiceCart, which bought the building last year, wanted to return it to.

But because of an aborted, but city-approved plan by a previous owner to convert the site into two semi-detached houses, Toronto Building no longer legally considers it an apartment building. And the city’s current rules say nothing bigger than a duplex can be constructed on the site today, meaning SpiceCart would need special exceptions to re-create the apartment units.

The property, which has the name “Monticito” carved into its stonework, was build in the early 1900s and last occupied in 2006.

Amid a citywide housing crisis, as officials and staff members have outlined numerous proposals to boost housing supply, local councillor Josh Matlow laments seeing the sizable midtown property “serving rats rather than people.”

SpiceCart applied to bend the rules, supported by Matlow and city staff, but as time passed, and the value of single-family homes in Toronto surged, Glina says they found themselves reconsidering their plans. The company deferred an August hearing, and recently put the property back on the market.

“I’m an apartment guy. I like having apartments,” Glina said. But, he added, “if we wanted to do things like the houses, which I could start on tomorrow, it’s starting to make more sense ... that we should just stop fighting and beating our head against the wall to get apartments.”

No one seems exactly sure when the original complex was built. When it was listed on the city’s heritage register, an estimate landed between 1913 and 1924. The property, which has the name “Monticito” carved into its stonework, has been home to an assortment of renters over the years; a 1960 directory lists among inhabitants a professional skater and university lecturer.

It was last rented out in 2006, according to city documents, with a mix of mid-range and affordable units. An owner in the early 2010s initially proposed to boost the number of units to 31, but after a public consultation, revised the pitch to instead build two semi-detached homes.

To scrap the old rental units in favour of the new plan, the owner promised to provide eight townhouse rentals east of the Don River -- two affordable units and six with mid-range rents. While the plan was greenlit by the city in 2014, with staff confirming those eight units have since been maintained as pledged, the redevelopment plan in Forest Hill was eventually abandoned.

Years later, the dilapidated brick building caught the eyes of Glina and SpiceCart.

“My passion has always been historical buildings,” Glina said. “I really kind of lean toward these types of buildings that have maybe been left to rot, and figure out what to do.”

He’d expected the Spadina property to be a more complicated project, given its age and history. But he says his team hoped to start construction soon after their purchase, and weren’t necessarily aware of all the work it would take to turn it back into an apartment building.

The current owner had plans to revert the building into 17 apartments, but due to the process of applying to change the zoning and a shift in the market, it is now considering selling it.

While city planning staff believe the complex was originally built legally, today’s planning rules wouldn’t allow it in that location. Because the building predated the rules, it was given an exception known as “legal nonconforming status” -- meaning it could stay put as long as the site was “continually used” as an apartment building. The same exceptions have been given to the likes of old churches and corner stores in various Toronto neighbourhoods.

But making a major change to a legally nonconforming building risks losing its protected status. In this case, Toronto Building staff believe the complex stopped being an apartment building due to “substantial” construction work during the previous effort to turn it into two single-family homes.

While SpiceCart argued in an application to Toronto’s committee of adjustment that the property had never actually been used as anything other than an apartment building, staff now point to updated zoning rules, which allow a maximum of two dwelling units on the property.

That two-unit cap was imposed on the zoning area surrounding the Spadina building -- a swath of land just a few streets wide -- sometime after it was built, despite the city currently having zoning rules that are meant to permit apartment buildings in the very same area. Any new development would also have to meet other city requirements, from setbacks to parking.

Both Matlow and the city planning department had voiced support for SpiceCart’s committee of adjustment application, backing the idea of reverting the complex back to its original use.

“This is an opportunity to introduce more housing to this neighbourhood through interior alterations to an existing building,” community planning manager Oren Tamir said in an email.

Though Tamir told the Star there were no unusual delays with SpiceCart’s committee application, Glina expressed frustration with what he described as “internal bureaucracy.”

He believes the city’s various rules can make it “difficult” to build or restore rental apartments -- but sympathizes with Matlow’s frustration seeing the property go unused for years.

“We’re really just trying to figure out what is our best step forward,” he said.

Matlow is simply hoping the site can be brought back into “livable” condition, and inhabited after years of sitting boarded up.

“For the benefit of the neighbourhood, and to get a residential building back onto the market, I’d like to see something move forward there,” Matlow said.

“Having this building sit derelict and off the housing market is unacceptable,” he said.