Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 03, 2021

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001203

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

Appellant: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario – London Region Branch

Applicant: Farhi Holdings Corporation

Subject: Official Plan Amendment No. 37

Municipality: City of London

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001203

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001203

OLT Case Name: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario v. London (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario – London Region Branch

Applicant: Farhi Holdings Corporation

Subject: By-law No. Z-1-212942

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001203

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001204

Heard: November 24, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

City of London (“City”)

Aynsely Anderson Vanetia. R

Architectural Conservancy of Ontario – London Region Branch (“Appellant”) Farhi Holdings Corporation (“Applicant”)

Alex Ciccone Paula Lombardi

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. RUSSO ON NOVEMBER 24, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant is the owner of the lands municipally known as 435-451 Ridout Street North (the “Subject Lands”).

2The Applicant had applied to the City for an Official Plan Amendment (the “OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBLA”) in order to intensify the lands and obtain approvals to construct a 40-storey mixed-use building with 280 residential units, 6,308 square metres of new office/commercial gross floor area and 372 parking spaces.

3Currently on the Subject Lands are three heritage buildings designated under the Heritage Act and are a part of the Downtown Heritage Conservation District and are listed as a National Historic Site of Canada. A portion of the Subject Lands are regulated by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority as the site is adjacent to the Thames River.

4City Planning Staff recommended approval of the applications. Staff within their recommendations indicated that the proposal facilitates the development of an underutilized site with an appropriate form of development at a prominent location. The recommended bonus zone ensures the building form and design fits within the surrounding area while providing a high-quality design standard.

5City Council accepted the recommendations of Planning Staff and issued an approval of the applications on June 23, 2021

6The Appellant disagreed with the decision of City Council and excised their statutory right to appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to subsections 17(24) and 34(19) of the Planning Act (the “Act”).

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (the “CMC”)

7The Tribunal held this first CMC in accordance with s. 15 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4.

8The Tribunal prior to the commencement of the CMC had received no additional requests for Party status, however, several requests for Participant status.

9At the CMC the three identified Parties were present with Counsel and status was confirmed and granted for the Applicant, Appellant and the City (being the original approval authority).

10The Tribunal did clarify with the aid of Counsel for the Appellant, that the Party and Appellant for these proceedings was indeed the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario – London Region Branch.

11Some confusion through correspondence had existed and was clarified that the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (the mother agency with several branches throughout Ontario) was supportive of the appeal and had requested in writing, Participant status for these proceedings. However, at the CMC, through Counsel of the Appellant, they withdrew their request, citing that upon reflection they deemed their status was somewhat duplication of the Appellant’s overall reasons of appeal.

12Eleven additional requests for Participant status were received by the Tribunal with all those seeking status present at the CMC.

13The Tribunal having posed some questions to those seeking status and being satisfied with their responses and with no opposition noted by Counsel, granted Participant status to the following individuals and incorporated organizations as follows:

i. London and Middlesex Historical Society (representative- Steven Liggett)

ii. Lynne DiStefano

iii. Michelle Hamilton

iv. Susan Bentley

v. The Urban League of London (representative- Franke Skylar)

vi. Ann Mary Hodge

vii. Anna Maria Valastro

viii. Hazel Elmslie

ix. Janet Hunten

x. Jill Jacobson

xi. Nancy Tausky

14The Tribunal noted that the Affidavit of Service was provided and complied with the statutory timelines set out. With the Parties acknowledgement the Affidavit of Service was marked as Exhibit 1.

ISSES LIST, DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND HEARING

15A Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) was provided to the Tribunal on consent of the Parties in advance of the CMC.

16The Parties had provided an Issues List as Attachment 2 to the DPO. However, Counsel advised the Tribunal that the DPO left several dates blank and unable to be provided at this time, without a Hearing of the Merits date set and the ability of the Parties to work backwards from that date.

17Jointly, the Parties preferred to have the hearing date set to adequately provide dates for their final submission of the DPO. Through ongoing discussions as well as anticipated witnesses to be called, the Parties believed that an eight-day hearing would be required to hear the merits of this matter.

MEDIATION

18The Tribunal asked the Parties if mediation had been explored or settlement discussions had occurred.

19The Parties indicated they have had positive and amicable discussions thus far, however, they agreed at this time, mediation was not likely. The Tribunal reminded the Parties of Tribunal-led mediation and further reminded the Parties to share any progress and changes, if and when they may occur, with the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

CONCLUSION

20Having considered the discussion during the CMC regarding the issues, potential mediation and finalizing the DPO, the Tribunal determined that it would be reasonable to schedule the hearing for eight days.

21The Tribunal has provided the Parties two weeks to revise and finalize the DPO and submit to the Tribunal for final approval.

ORDER

22The Tribunal orders a hearing by video, scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, August 2, 2022, for eight (8) days, as follows:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509

Access Code: 719-383-509

23Parties 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.

24Parties 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.

25Persons 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.

26Individuals 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 hearing by video 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.

27On or before December 8, 2021, the Parties shall provide a joint DPO and Issues List to the assigned Case Coordinator for final review and approval of the Member, highlighting any items that may require the Tribunal’s assistance to finalize.

28The Parties shall provide at least 10 days’ notice to the Tribunal prior to the hearing date in the event that fewer hearing dates are agreed upon by the Parties or if settlement has been entered into by the Parties.

29Post the meeting of the experts, the Member may be spoken to, if required, through correspondence received through the Case Coordinator.

30The Member is not seized for the purposes of hearing the appeal, but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should issues arise.

31No further notice of the hearing is required.

“M. Russo”

M. RUSSO

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