Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 27, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL200204
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Mixed Used Areas
Proposed Designation: Mixed Used Areas
Purpose: To permit a 9-storey mixed-use building containing 95 new rental units and retail use at-grade
Property Address/Description: 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Boulevard West
Municipality: City of Toronto
Approval Authority File No.: 19-146505 WET 03 OZ
OLT Case No.: PL200204
OLT File No.: PL200204
OLT Case Name: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2215 and Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Commercial Residential (CR 3.0(c3.0; r3.0) (SS2)) under the City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. Commercial (C) under the Etobicoke Zoning Code
Proposed Zoning: Commercial Residential – Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit a 9-storey mixed-use building containing 95 new rental units and retail use at-grade
Property Address/Description: 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Boulevard West
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 19-146505 WET 03 OZ
OLT Case No.: PL200204
OLT File No.: PL200205
Heard: October 19, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.
Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Alexander Suriano
CAPREIT Apartments Inc.
Sharmini Mahadevan
Johanna Shapira (in absentia)
Lakeshore Planning Council Corp.
Peggy Moulder*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. RUSSO ON OCTOBER 19, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to consider appeals by 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. (“Appellant”) against City Council’s failure to make decisions on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments respecting the properties known municipally as 2950 and 2970 Lakeshore Boulevard West (“Subject Lands”).
2The Appellant seeks approval for a redevelopment with an eight to nine-storey mixed-use building, including approximately 95 residential units and 485 square metres of at-grade commercial space.
3The L-shaped property is located at the north-east corner of the intersection of Lakeshore Boulevard West and Eighth Street having an area of 0.15 hectares (0.38 acres), a frontage of approximately 45.72 metres along Lakeshore Boulevard West and a depth of approximately 45.01 metres. The properties are currently used as a four-storey commercial office building and a two-storey retail building.
4At the second CMC, Peggy Moulder acting on behalf of Lakeshore Planning Council Corp.(“LPCC”) had brought forward a motion that the Tribunal had dismissed. It was determined that the motion was not only premature but also dealt with matters of interpretation of both planning policy and guidelines which are properly dealt with, in evidence, at the hearing, not at a CMC.
5The Tribunal had also determined that the process of formulating the Procedural Order (the “PO”) and Issues List, which had not been provided by the Parties to the Tribunal, was still evolving and required more time. The Tribunal therefore directed the Parties to continue discussions and spend the next few weeks discussing, refining and circulating the issues and come to the next CMC with the PO and Issues List for the Tribunal’s approval.
THE THIRD CMC
6Matthew Lakatos-Hayward, counsel for the Appellant, advised the Tribunal that a Draft PO had been submitted on consent by the Parties with dates and timelines inserted, however, the Issues List, had not been provided. Although the issues had been discussed, the Parties believed some additional debate was still required and further discussions necessary, for the PO to be finalized.
7Mr. Lakatos-Hayward also advised the Tribunal that possible revisions to the proposal are being considered by the Appellant and this possibility is currently being explored and discussed with the other Parties.
8For the reasons stated above, Mr. Lakatos-Hayward requested that the Tribunal set a date for another CMC to finalize the details and come prepared with a joint PO and Issues list (with possible revisions) for the Tribunal’s approval, preferably set for mid-March 2022.
9No objections were put forward by the other Parties, with the exception of LPCC.
10LPCC, although not opposed to the proposed additional CMC, was still concerned with issues that were yet to be addressed. LPCC believed those issues included flawed City Staff Reports, Urban Design elements and misinformation shared to City Council.
11The Tribunal reiterated what was previously determined and expressed by the presiding Member at the previous CMC. The topics shared by LPCC although possibly being relevant and important issues, are not issues relevant at a CMC. These are matters of interpretation of both planning policy and guidelines which are properly dealt with, in evidence, at the hearing.
12The Tribunal advised LPCC to review the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 8.1, role and obligations of a party and Rule 19.1, Case Management Conference and its purpose and function.
13The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the public and their involvement in the process, however, included that not being familiar with the process may create some ambiguity to procedure and appropriate next steps. The Tribunal did also make clear that this unfamiliarity, does not excuse the necessity to follow the appropriate procedure and process. The Member suggested that LPCC possibly seek counsel on specifics of their role and rules, as well as procedures that the Tribunal will continue to implement throughout this process.
14Having heard the request on consent of the Parties for the proposed additional CMC, the Tribunal finds the request to be reasonable and prudent.
ORDER
15The Parties are instructed to provide the Draft PO with Issues List in advance of the next CMC to the Tribunal’s assigned Case Coordinator, on or before Monday, February 14, 2022.
16A fourth CMC is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, March 14, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m.
17Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/812249661
Access Code: 812-249-661
18Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
19Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The Access Code is as indicated above.
20Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the video hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
21If any issues arise, the Member may be spoken to, if required, through correspondence received through the Case Coordinator.
22The Member is not seized for the purposes of the hearing of the appeal.
23No further notice is required.
“M. Russo”
M. russo
Member
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.