Local Planning Appeal Tribunal

Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local

ISSUE DATE: October 18, 2021

CASE NO(S).: MM170028, PL150374

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Antorisa Investments Ltd. et al Appellant: Jarvis Carlton Limited Partnership (formerly Phantom Developments Jarvis Inc.; Duration Investments Limited) Appellant: Magna Hotels (Toronto) Inc. Appellant: Bhushan and Rekha Taneja Appellant: Menkes Residence Ltd. (formerly Abtil Realty Limited et al) Appellant: Amexon Development Corporation Appellant: Menfor Dundas Developments Inc. (formerly 1373365 Ontario Limited; George Dundas Realty) Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 82 Municipality: City of Toronto OMB Case No.: PL150374 OMB File No.: PL150374 OMB Case Name: Taneja v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended

Appellant: Jarvis Residences Limited Partnership Appellant: Oben Flats Sherbourne GP Inc. Appellant: Bhushan and Rekha Taneja Appellant: Dundas MEP Developments Inc. Appellant: Jarvis Carlton Limited Partnership (formerly Phantom Developments Jarvis Inc.; Duration Investments Limited) Appellant: Lilie Li Appellant: 1722720 Ontario Limited Appellant: Menfor Dundas Developments Inc. (formerly 1373365 Ontario Limited; George Dundas Realty) Subject: By-law No. 232-2017 – Garden District Heritage Conservation District and Garden District Heritage Conservation District Plan Municipality: City of Toronto OMB Case No.: MM170028 OMB File No.: MM170028 OMB Case Name: Li v. Toronto (City)

Heard: June 22, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Toronto	C. Barnett, M. Longo
Amexon Development Corporation	A. Forristal, (in absentia K. Sutton)
Bhushan and Rekha Taneja	I. Andres
AVSR Holdings Inc.	I. Andres
Jarvis Residences Ltd. Partnership	I. Andres
Jarvis Carlton Limited Partnership (Jac Condos GP Inc.)	M. Cook
Menfor Dundas Developments Inc.	K. Gossen

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR DELIVERED ON JUNE 22, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This was a settlement hearing for appeals from the City of Toronto’s (“City”) adoption of the Garden District Heritage Conservation District designation and the District Plan (“GDHCDP”) pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) via City By-law No. 232-2017.

PRELIMINARY

2The City informed the Tribunal that they have knowledge that parties Dundas MEP Developments and Oben Flats Sherbourne GP Inc. will not attend but were in consent to the settlement. The Tribunal directed the City to provide the associated communication and information to the Tribunal case-coordinator.

3Similarly, while this hearing did not cover the topic of appeals in file PL150374, the City informed that the appeals in that matter administrative closure the matters having been addressed pending three or four properties finalization.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

4The City presented two experts to address planning, heritage and urban design elements of the proposed settlement.

5The City presented Pourya Nazemi to provide expert opinion evidence in the areas of heritage planning and urban design. Mr. Nazemi’s sworn affidavit was included in consolidated document book marked as Exhibit 1.

6The City provided Derek Waltho as an expert in the area of land use planning. Mr. Waltho’s sworn affidavit was marked by the Tribunal as Exhibit 2. However, Mr. Waltho was not called to provide oral testimony and Mr. Nazemi commended Mr. Waltho’s planning analysis and opinions in support of the settlement and recommendation of approval of the proposed GDHCDP as in Exhibit 1 (Tab Exhibit F).

7Mr. Nazemi opined that whereas the GDHCDP finds the basis for development in the Act, the OHA provides framework for the constitution of such a plan.

8Mr. Nazemi opined that as per Exhibit 2, the GDHCDP addresses aspects of provincial interest per the Act as directed in s. 2 (d), (h), (p), and (r):

(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest;

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and

(r) the promotion of built form that,

(i) is well-designed,

(ii) encourages a sense of place, and

(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe,

accessible, attractive and vibrant;

9Mr. Nazemi referring to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”) opined that the GDHCDP is consistent with the PPS 2020 as it provides for intensification and redevelopment while at the same time protecting cultural resources. The GDHCDP plan provides appropriate conservation measures and built form guidance. The GDHCDP plan also provides for (or does not preclude) intensification and redevelopment through its policies on alterations, massing, new developments and additions while at the same time providing protection for the heritage resources within the district. He concluded that thus the dual policy direction of allowing for intensification while protecting heritage resources ensures the GDHCDP is consistent with the PPS 2020.

10In review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the “Growth Plan”) the policies promoting intensification and setting targets for that intensification are tempered by Policy 4.2.7.1 which states that cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. He concluded that this balance of growth and conservation of heritage resources is the basis of my conclusion that the HCD conforms with the Growth Plan while not compromising the City’s achievement of its Growth Plan targets.

11Based on Mr. Waltho’s analysis (Exhibit 2, pages 7-11), Mr. Nazemi opined that the GDHCDP is consistent with the direction of Downtown Policy 2.2.1.5 of the Official Plan in that the GDHCDP provides a comprehensive set of policies for the conservation of heritage resources. It is also my opinion that the policies and guideline direction of the GDHCDP, specifically those pertaining to built form and land use designations in relation to the area's heritage resources, is appropriate. He added that the GDHCDP policies conform and expand on Policy 3.1.5.14 of the Official Plan as it was formed based on a study that evaluated the heritage resources within the Plan area and identified measures for its continued conservation as a district. The policies and guidelines of the GDHCDP provide a complementary framework on how to apply the built form policies of the Official Plan and as such conform to the Official Plan.

12Mr. Nazemi in consideration of Exhibit 2 (pages 11-13) regarding the City Downtown Plan (OPA 406) and the Site and Area Specific Policy 461 (Official Plan Amendment 82) opined that the GDHCDP continues to conform through the recognition of existing and future high-rise or tower developments where these can be suitably accommodated from a massing and through consideration of surrounding environs.

13Mr. Nazemi reviewed the proposed GDHCDP and contrasted it with the original HCDCP to highlight the changes that the parties and the City have worked to achieve. He opined that it represents good heritage planning framework for the ongoing and long-term protection, conservation management of the District's cultural heritage values and heritage attributes. He added that the District merits designation under Part V of the OHA ("OHA") and the revisions proposed as a settlement to the appeals are consistent with the overall intent of the Original Plan adopted by the City.

14The revisions made to the Original Plan provide greater clarity and precision as to how the GDHCDP is to be applied, and therefore is stronger both in the GDHCDP Plan's approval, and for future development applications within the District.

15Mr. Nazemi concluded that the GDHCDP before the Tribunal will achieve an appropriate balance in implementing the full range of heritage planning while allowing for growth in the District. Mr. Nazemi recommended that the Tribunal approve the revised GDHCDP.

16The City and all parties in consent submitted that the Tribunal approve the GDHCDP before it Exhibit 1 (Tab Exhibit F) in principle at this hearing.

17The Tribunal having received the uncontroverted opinion evidence from Mr. Nazemi and the associated land use planning evidence of Mr. Waltho finds that the proposed GDHCDP has regard for the provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS 2020, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City’s Official Plans as amended and thus is appropriate from a land use planning basis. The Tribunal further finds that based on the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Nazemi in respect of the OHA and urban design considerations, that the proposed HCDCP has appropriate regard for establishing a designation under Part V of the OHA.

18The Tribunal thus approved the draft GDHCDP Exhibit 1 (Tab Exhibit F) and directed the City to provide a revised form of the GDHCDP reflecting minor changes flagged at the hearing. Since the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal has received the revised version of the GDHCDP and finds that it is appropriate for final approval by the Tribunal.

ORDER

19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against By-law 232-2017 of the City of Toronto is allowed in part. The “Garden District Heritage Conservation District Plan, dated November 2016” enacted through By-law No. 232-2017 of the City of Toronto is replaced with Attachment 1 to this order. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that the appeal is dismissed.

20Should any difficulties arise implementing this order, the Tribunal may be approached.

“Jatinder Bhullar”

JATINDER BHULLAR

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.