CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).:

OLT-21-001701

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S):

November 10, 2022

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE:

November 18, 2022

RE: Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Correction to: The day was mis-referenced (paragraph 47).

Originally:

Corrected to:

47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, notwithstanding the eventual date of the formal issuance of this Order, it shall be, and was, effective as of Thursday, August 3, 2022 which is the date that the Tribunal received and considered the evidence in support of the request for the Final Order in this proceeding and determined that the Appeals should be allowed, and the amending instruments

should be approved.

47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, notwithstanding the eventual date of the formal issuance of this Order, it shall be, and was, effective as of Wednesday, August 3, 2022 which is the date that the Tribunal received and considered the evidence in support of the request for the Final Order in this proceeding and determined that the Appeals should be allowed, and the amending instruments

should be approved.

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR

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.

ISSUE DATE:

November 10, 2022

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-21-001701

EFFECTIVE DATE:

August 03, 2022

(formerly PL200237)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of

the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Purpose:

To permit a mixed-use community of

commercial, residential, park, and open space uses

Property Address/Description:

1900 Eglinton Avenue East

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Property Address:

2200-2206 Eglinton Ave. E., et. al.

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.:

19 208733 ESC 21 O

OLT Case No.:

OLT-21-001701

Legacy Case No.:

PL200237

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-21-001701

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL200237

OLT Case Name:

Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) 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:

Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend former City of Scarborough Employment Districts Zoning By- law No. 24982 – Neglect or Refusal of

application by City of Toronto

Purpose:

To permit a two building, 899 unit mixed use

development

Property Address/Description:

1900 Eglinton Avenue East

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipality File No.:

21 111522 ESC 21 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-21-001334

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-21-001701

Heard:

August 3, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton Inc.)

David Bronskill

Max Laskin (in absentia) Joe Hoffman (in absentia)

City of Toronto

Amanda Hill Daniel Elmadany

Toronto District School Board and Toronto Lands Corporation

Julie Lesage

Pittman Patterson (in absentia)

Bell Canada

Lee English

Issac Tang (in absentia)

Yorkreal Holdings Inc.

John Dawson

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BRYAN W. TUCKEY ON AUGUST 3, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal convened a Settlement Hearing (“Hearing”) for the above noted matter. Calloway REIT (1900 Eglinton) Inc. (‘Applicant”) has filed appeals against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment pursuant to s. 22(7) and a Zoning By-law Amendment pursuant to s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act (“Act”). The property is known municipally as 1900 Eglington Avenue East in the City (“subject property”).

2The effect of the two planning instruments under appeal is to provide for a comprehensive and complete mixed-use redevelopment plan to allow a mixed-use

development and to permit an increased height and density on the subject property. The proposed development would be phased and integrated within a public and privately owned road system and along with publicly and privately owned park and open space areas (“development”).

3The five Parties are all represented at this Hearing as noted above.

4Counsel for the Applicant, David Bronskill, advised the Tribunal that the Applicant has reached a full settlement (“proposed settlement”) with the City. The details of the proposed settlement are found in the Affidavit of David McKay marked as Exhibit 4 to this proceeding.

5The Tribunal has two planning instruments for consideration at this Hearing:

a. an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto (“City OP”); found at Exhibit 5. The OPA proposes a Site and Area Specific Policy (“SASP”) that provides specific policy guidance with respect to implementing the proposed settlement, and;

b. a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to bring a portion of the subject lands into City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, as an exception zone category in keeping with City practices. The ZBA includes a series of site-specific provisions including building heights, maximum Gross Floor Areas (“GFA”), and a maximum number of dwelling units.

MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT

6Mr. Bronskill submitted a Minutes of Settlement (“MoS”) to the Tribunal which further defines and clarifies the basis for settlement between the Applicant and The Bell Telephone Company of Canada (Exhibit 7). The content of the MoS deals with issues including air quality and noise mitigation that are required to implement the development

on a portion of the subject property. The MoS includes two schedules being: a Restrictive Covenant Agreement and an Industrial and Mining Lands Compensation Act Agreement.

7Testimony is heard from one planning witness Mr. McKay. He is qualified to give expert evidence in the discipline of land use planning. With respect to this matter, he has considerable planning experience within the subject area and the City.

BACKGROUND, SUBJECT PROPERTY AND AREA ANALYSIS

8The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Hakimi Avenue and is currently occupied by an outdoor commercial shopping centre with an existing gross floor area (“GFA”) of approximately 32,500 square metres (“sq m”) and a large surface parking area. The subject property is 11.6 hectares (“ha”) in size and has frontage on Eglinton Avenue East to the south, Hakimi Avenue to the east and Ashtonbee Road to the north.

9The OPA applies to the entirety of the subject property but only the Phase 1 lands located in the southwest corner of the subject property are subject to the ZBA. Phase 1 lands are 0.818 ha and are currently occupied by a one storey Bank of Montreal and a surface parking lot.

10The subject property is centrally located within the Golden Mile along the Eglinton Avenue East corridor, which provides a range of retail, service-commercial and office uses serving the traveling public. The general area is comprised mainly of large- format retail and surface parking with low-rise commercial and industrial facilities to the north and south of Eglinton Avenue East.

11The subject property is well served by active transportation options. The options include: the planned Gatineau Hydro Corridor Trail improvements, a new Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit higher order transit station, along with new streets and pedestrian and cycling connections to better connect transit users with the new employment, retail, residential and institutional uses in the area.

12Surrounding land uses are North - is the existing Ashtonbee Reservoir, Wexford Park, the hydro corridor, the Gatineau Hydro Corridor and Centennial College Ashtonbee Campus; East - is an automobile dealership, low-rise commercial uses, and an existing five story office ; South - are a mix of employment uses including a Canadian Tire, Eglinton Town Centre, and low-rise commercial uses; and West - are an existing Petro Canada station and a Bell Canada office and related facilities.

13The City initiated the Golden Mile Secondary Plan - Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (“GMSP”) process in 2017. The purpose of this planning exercise is to establish a broad planning framework for the area between Victoria Park Avenue and Birchmount Road centred on Eglinton Avenue East. To provide input to the GMSP, the Applicant filed a privately-initiated OPA with the City in August 2019. The intention of this OPA was to create a development framework for the long-term development of the subject property as it evolves from a commercial plaza to a new transit-oriented, mixed-use community which would incorporate new streets (both public and private), parks and open space, and different mixed-use building typologies.

14In November 2019, Scarborough Community Council considered a preliminary report from staff with respect to the OPA application. The OPA application was appealed on April 23, 2020. The Applicant submitted a ZBA application for the Phase 1 lands in January 2021 to permit the development of two high-rise buildings at the southwest corner of the subject property. The ZBA application was appealed on August 24, 2021.

15Over the course of the last year, the Applicant and City had numerous meetings to discuss the applications and explore potential resolution of outstanding issues. These

discussions proved successful, and City Council endorsed the proposed settlement at its June 15 and 16, 2022 meeting. It is this proposed settlement that is presented to this Tribunal at this proceeding.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

16The main components of the proposed settlement include the following:

a. 12 new residential and mixed-use buildings with heights ranging from 6 to 48 storeys. The buildings will contain a total of 4,997 dwelling units with a total GFA of 431,476 sq m. This total includes 43,146 sq m of non- residential uses. The resulting Floor Space Index (“FSI”) is 3.70. the density proposed will support the new Eglinton Crosstown Light Rapid Transit facilities, a significant transit infrastructure initiative of the City and Province;

b. the dwelling units include approximately 10% three bedroom, 15% two- bedroom and 75% one bedroom units. The proposed settlement includes a provision for affordable housing in accordance with the City's Housing Policy;

c. there is a significant increase in the amount of dedicated parkland with the introduction of 16,619 sq m of public parkland. A series of privately owned publicly accessible spaces (“POPS”) are envisioned throughout the subject property to enhance and support the public realm components of the development;

d. a new East-West Street (commonly referred to as ‘Golden Mile Blvd’) which is a public mid-block Road. New neighborhood public and private streets will be established to divide the subject property into smaller development parcels thereby providing for pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicular connectivity;

e. a minimum of 10% of the GFA south of the Golden Mile Blvd is devoted to non-residential uses. This is intended to ensure an active street life and to ensure that the provision of local shopping and services is incorporated throughout the development;

f. there is provision for two not-for-profit licensed childcare centres as well as either a school or a community services facility: and

g. the development was tested at length to ensure no adverse shadow impacts on public realm elements.

LAND USE PLANNING POLICY

17Mr. McKay, in his Affidavit and testimony advised the Tribunal that he routinely takes a very comprehensive view and review of all relevant planning policy, economic development, and urban design objectives. After doing so for this application, he prepared a comprehensive Affidavit in support of the proposed settlement. The OPA and ZBA applications are also supported by a multi-disciplinary project team.

Provincial Policy

18Mr. Mckay reviewed s. 2 – Provincial Interests in the Act and noted the many matters that speak specifically to the proposed settlement. He opined that the proposed settlement gives proper consideration and regard to all matters related to s. 2 of the Act.

19Mr. McKay outlined the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) which articulates the Provincial led planning policy regime. The PPS encourages the wise management of land in order to achieve efficient land use patterns by directing growth to settlement areas and promoting a compact form of development. Provisions of the PPS summarized in testimony are:

a. promoting efficient development and land use patterns;

b. protecting the natural and built environment;

c. accommodation of an appropriate range of residential and other uses and accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment;

d. the integration of land use planning, growth management, and transit supportive development. Providing a suitable range of recreation, parks and open space while encouraging a sense of community by promoting well designed built form and conserving features that help define local character;

e. promotes densities and mix of land uses which result in the efficient use of land and infrastructure;

f. supports active transportation and are transit supportive;

g. identify appropriate areas for intensification with appropriate development standards and directing development to locations that have an appropriate level of infrastructure and public service facilities; and

h. supporting long-term prosperity by optimizing the use of land resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities.

20Mr. McKay opined that the proposed OPA and ZBA are consistent with the 2020 PPS.

21The Planner gave evidence with respect to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”) as amended. The Growth Plan establishes a comprehensive growth management strategy for municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Relevant policy considerations included:

a. The subject property is designated “Mixed Use Areas” in the City OP and is located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”). The subject property is also located within the boundaries of the GMSP which provides an overarching framework for land use, development capacity, a new street network and a parks and open space system;

b. important policies relate to the creation of complete communities and optimizing the use of land and infrastructure. A diverse range and mix of housing options that are convenient to a range of transportation facilities, provide for a more compact built form and vibrant public realm are encouraged;

c. municipalities are directed to undertake integrated planning in order to manage forecasted growth to the horizon of the growth plan. Integrated planning will assist in providing an urban form that will optimize infrastructure particularly along transit and transportation corridors, in an effort to support the achievement of complete communities through a more compact built form;

d. supports intensification to make efficient use of land and infrastructure is promoted. Prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to make efficient use of land, infrastructure, and support transit viability;

e. assists in the development of a complete community with a diverse mix of land uses;

f. provides for a complete community by promoting a compact built form that is integrated in the community and with adjacent land uses;

g. helps ensure economic development and competitiveness of the Greater Golden Horseshoe by integrating and aligning land use planning and economic development goals and strategies; and

h. makes efficient use of available infrastructure to accommodate growth.

22Mr. McKay opined that the proposed OPA and ZBA conform to the policies of the 2019 Growth Plan as amended.

Municipal Policy

City of Toronto Official Plan

23Mr. McKay advised the Tribunal that the subject property is along an Avenue in accordance with Map 2 of the City OP and is the subject of the City’s GMSP which incorporates the requirements of the Avenue Study. As the City has completed its Secondary Plan Review, which incorporates requirements of an Avenue Study, the subject property is not required to complete an Individual Avenue Segment Study.

24The subject property is designated “Mixed Use Areas” in the City OP and is located within a PMTSA. Eglinton Avenue East is identified as a Higher Order Transit Corridor on Map 4 - and Eglinton Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue are identified as a Transit Priority Segments on Map 5 - Surface Transit Priority Network. The GMSP amends Map 3, Schedule 1 and 2 with respect to existing major and minor streets and establishes new right-of-way widths, where appropriate. The existing SASP 667 also identifies the subject property as being within the Hakimi Lebovic Station PMTSA with a minimum density of 1.0 FSI.

25City OP policy, as it applies to the subject property, permits a broad range of commercial, residential, institutional uses in single-use or mixed-use buildings, as well as parks and open spaces. Development is intended to create a balance of a high- quality urban environment that reduces automobile dependency, meets the needs of the

local community, and provides opportunities for new jobs and homes on underutilized lands.

26Mr. McKay summarized in evidence by noting that the City OP sets out a number of strategies and objectives to assist in meeting its desired outcome within Mixed Use Areas that include:

a. new neighbourhoods by providing a comprehensive planning framework to reflect the City’s OP City-wide goals in keeping with the context of the Plan;

b. using municipal land, infrastructures, and services efficiently. Directing planning for new development in the context of reducing auto dependency and creating a multi-modal approach to address the transportation demands and impacts of new development;

c. concentrating jobs and people in areas well served by surface transit and rapid transit stations;

d. promoting mixed use development to increase opportunities for living close to work and to encourage walking and cycling for local trips;

e. offering opportunities for people of all means to be affordably housed;

f. facilitating social interaction, public safety, and cultural and economic activity. Acknowledges the importance of the public realm and high quality urban design in creating great communities and a great City;

g. promoting quality architectural, landscape and urban design in each of the character areas, and ensures that sidewalk and boulevards are designed to promote safe, attractive, interesting, and comfortable spaces for pedestrians in order to support the development of sustainable, economically vibrant, and complete communities;

h. provides direction on built form and building typologies. New development is intended to fit harmoniously within the new planned context including buildings to be massed and located to frame adjacent streets, a series of setback policy directions, active grade uses, a transition of scale to low- rise areas and ensuring connections/access to adjacent sidewalks, streets, parks, and open spaces;

i. the vision of the GMSP is for a vibrant public realm as a key structural element for its successful implementation with existing, new, and reconfigured/widened streets that link to new parks and a series of open spaces;

j. improving air quality with an energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and

k. protecting neighborhoods, adjacent land uses, and green spaces from the effects of nearby development.

27Mr. McKay summarized his testimony by stating that the City OP as implemented through the GMSP and proposed SASP, require new developments to create a balance of high quality commercial, residential, community and open space uses that reduce automobile dependency and take advantage of the nearby light rail transit stops. They must meet the needs of the Golden Mile community, provide opportunity for new jobs and homes within the Plan Area. Buildings must be located and massed to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale and to limit shadow impacts through appropriate setbacks and stepping down of heights, particularly towards lower scale Neighbourhoods, employment areas and parks and open spaces.

28Mr. McKay opined that the OPA and ZBA conforms with the intent of the City OP with specific reference to Mixed-Use Areas designation, the emerging policies of the GMSP and the policies related to growth management and housing. The proposed OPA

conforms to the City OP, is appropriate from a planning perspective, and the proposed ZBA conforms with the City OP as to be amended by the proposed OPA.

Zoning By-law Amendment – Phase 1

29The subject property is zoned ‘Mixed Employment Zone’ ME-334-335-988-1054- 2043 in the former Scarborough Employment Districts Zoning By-law No. 24982. The ME zoning permits a wide range of retail and commercial uses on the subject property but there is no permission for residential.

30The intent of the proposed ZBA is to bring the Phase 1 lands into the City-wide Bylaw No. 569-2013, as amended. Therefore, an amendment to the former Scarborough By-law is not required.

31The proposed ZBA would rezone the subject property to an Exception Zone CR (795) Zone in keeping with City practices. The ZBA establishes provisions for such matters as location and s, maximum heights of the two buildings, tower setbacks, tower separation and stepbacks, minimum required parking and loading requirements and minimum amount of two and three bedroom units. There are a series of exception regulations and other salient applicable regulations. The ZBA also has provisions with respect to Section 37 matters and outlines the various Holding Zone obligations of the Applicant.

32In conclusion, Mr. McKay is of the opinion that the proposed settlement represents good planning and is in the public interest. The proposed OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard to s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the 2020 PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, as amended, conform with the policies of the City OP and the SASP provides for additional detailed policies which further implement the GMSP.

33He also opined that he proposed SASP has appropriate regard for OPA 499 – GMSP. The Tribunal agrees.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

City Guidelines Relating to the Proposed Settlement and Planning Instruments

34Mr. McKay brought to the attention of the Tribunal a number of City Guidelines that are relevant to the proposed settlement. These guidelines are not statutory policy documents but serve to compliment and provide detail with respect to City OP policy. In his evidence, the planner testified that the proposed settlement has had appropriate regard for the following City guidelines:

a. Golden Mile Urban Design Guidelines;

b. Tall Building Guidelines;

c. Mid-Rise Guidelines; and

d. Growing up - Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities.

Section 37

35The City and the Applicant have come to an agreement on a series of Section 37 Community Benefits that are detailed in Schedule A - Section 37 Provisions in the ZBA. Agreement. The Community Benefits will be secured in a Section 37 Agreement prior to the issuance of any building permit. Community Benefits include: the provision of a minimum of 60 affordable housing units; public art, required transportation improvements, and transportation demand management measures, the provision of publicly accessible open space on the Phase 1 lands, mid-block connections and a multi use path along with other matters as specified.

36Mr. McKay is of the opinion the Section 37 contributions and legal conveniences secured through the Section 37 agreement are appropriate, reasonable, and not uncommon for these types of intensified proposals.

Bell Canada Facilities

37Bell Canada has a facility located at 865 Pharmacy Avenue. Arrangements have been made between Bell Canada and the Applicant to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented relative to their facility in the northwest portions of the Phase 1 lands. These mitigation measures are to be implemented through the site plan approval of the Phase 1 lands and are the subject of the MoS described earlier in this Decision.

Relationship between the Proposed SASP and OPA 499

38Mr. McKay noted in testimony that should there be duplication between the proposed SASP and OPA 499, which includes the GMSP, should it come into effect on the subject property, a revised SASP will be requested of the Tribunal to eliminate any duplicative policies and to allow all policies to be read and applied together on a go forward basis. The Tribunal agrees.

TRIBUNAL FINDINGS

39The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr. McKay in its entirety and finds the OPA and ZBA (as put forward in the proposed settlement) meet all the relevant policy tests of the s. 2 of the Act, the 2020 PPS, the Growth Plan, and all relevant foundational policies of the City OP, and meets the intent of By-law No. 569-2013. They represent good planning and are in the public interest. The Tribunal agrees that the proposed settlement has had appropriate regard for the relevant City guidelines and OPA 499 – GMSP.

40The Tribunal finds that the City has extremely well established planning policy for the subject property and surrounding area and has followed a careful, complete, and comprehensive planning review of the proposed settlement and the OPA and ZBA. The Tribunal is satisfied with the efforts of the City and all Applicants involved, to create a vision for the Golden Mile that has the potential to be truly remarkable. It is an

extraordinary City Building venture and the policies found in the SASP provide a complete and comprehensive basis on which to guide development.

41The Tribunal understands this is an early step and what will be many decades in its implementation and long term commitment is required by all involved. This commitment is demonstrated at this settlement hearing by the efforts of all parties to find the proposed settlement.

42The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA align with the established principles of relevant Provincial policy, the City OP, and the GMSP for reasons including the following:

a. the subject lands are within “Mixed Use Areas” and a “Protected Major Transit Station Area” within the City where intensification is promoted. It is along the route of the new higher order Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit and will be served by a transit station;

b. represents an efficient development and land use pattern that serves to make efficient use of land and infrastructure;

c. accommodates an appropriate range of residential and other uses and provides a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment. The proposed settlement will add a total of 4,997 much needed additional dwelling units in the City;

d. serves to integrate land use planning, growth management, transit supportive development as it offers excellent transit-oriented development being within walking distance of an Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit station;

e. promotes densities and mix of land uses which result in the efficient use of land and infrastructure. It is appropriately scaled and sized to ensure a balance between the priority of intensification without resulting in negative built form impacts by providing an appropriate transition and buffer to adjacent land uses;

f. contributes to the creation of a complete community and optimizes the use of land and infrastructure, with a diverse mix of land uses by promoting a compact built form that is integrated into the community and with adjacent land uses;

g. helps to ensure economic development and competitiveness of the City;

h. serves to integrate and align land use planning and economic development goals and strategies; and

i. makes efficient use of available infrastructure to accommodate growth.

43In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the proposed settlement, as presented, is appropriate and a desirable addition to the City, represents good land use planning, is consistent or in conformity with, and meets the objectives of all requisite public policy and is in the public interest.

44The Tribunal is presented with a draft OPA and ZBA. The proposed settlement and planning instruments were presented to the City Council on June 15, 2022. City Council accepted the without prejudice settlement offer subject to a series of conditions which have been included in either the OPA or ZBA. The Tribunal conducted its review of the proposed settlement on August 3, 2022 during the settlement hearing and was then satisfied with the evidence and made its findings and determined that the Final Order should issue to allow the Appeals in part and approve the instruments. It is therefore appropriate that this Order is effective as of August 3, 2022 in keeping with Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal – Rules of Practice and Procedure.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Official Plan Amendment Appeal and the Zoning Appeal are allowed, in part, and that the City of Toronto’s Official Plan is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment “1” to this Order and Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 of the City of Toronto, as amended, is hereby amended in the manner set out in Attachment “2” to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format the Official Plan Amendment in Attachment “1” and the Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment "2", as may be necessary, for record keeping purposes.

46THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS AND ORDERS that pursuant to subsections 17(5) and 22(11) of the Planning Act and Rules 24.2 and 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure should any part of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002510 come into force and effect as it applies to the lands subject of this Order, the City and Appellant may seek a revised Attachment "1" to delete, amend or revise policies and/or mapping, which are duplicative or similar to amendments to the Official Plan contained in Official Plan Amendment No. 499 and any such amended Order will be effective on the effective date of this Order.

47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, notwithstanding the eventual date of the formal issuance of this Order, it shall be, and was, effective as of Thursday, August 3, 2022 which is the date that the Tribunal received and considered the evidence in support of the request for the Final Order in this proceeding and determined that the Appeals should be allowed, and the amending instruments should be approved.

“Bryan W. Tuckey”

BRYAN W. TUCKEY

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2