Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 17, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002229 (Formerly PL210301)

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

Applicant and Appellant: CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Mixed Use Areas Proposed Designated: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a comprehensive development of a mixed-use, transit-oriented community Property Address/Description: 1880-1890 Eglinton Avenue East and 1523 and 1525-1545 Victoria Park Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 15 258686 ESC 37 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002229 Legacy Case No.: PL180201 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002229 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180201 OLT Case Name: CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited 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: CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 – Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: Commercial Residential Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit a comprehensive development of a mixed-use, transit-oriented community Property Address/Description: 1880-1890 Eglinton Avenue East and 1523 and 1525-1545 Victoria Park Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 20 209175 ESC 21 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002240 Legacy Case No.: PL210300 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002229 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180201

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the City of Toronto to make a decision Purpose: To permit a comprehensive development of a mixed-use, transit-oriented community Property Address/Description: 1880-1890 Eglinton Avenue East and 1523 and 1525-1545 Victoria Park Avenue Municipality: City of Toronto Approval Authority File No.: 20 209194 ESC 21 SB OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002243 Legacy Case No.: PL210301 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002229 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180201

Heard: November 7, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd	Sidonia Tomasella Maggie Bassani (in absentia)
City of Toronto	Amanda Hill Daniel Elmadany
D.D. Acquisition Partnership	Sharmini Mahadevan
Calloway REIT	Max Laskin (in absentia)
Bell Telephone Company of Canada	Lee English Issac Tang (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BRYAN W. TUCKEY ON NOVEMBER 7, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal convened a Settlement Hearing (“Hearing”) with respect to an appeal by CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd.(“Appellant”) of the City of Toronto's (“City”) draft Plan of Subdivision (“PoS”) pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”). The purpose of this Hearing is to review and approve the draft PoS prepared by Speight, Van Nostrand and Gibson Ltd. dated September 9, 2022 and the Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by the City and Appellant.

2This appeal relates to a site (“subject lands”) located at 1890 Eglinton Avenue East and 1523 and 1525 to 1545 Victoria Park Avenue and the proposed redevelopment of subject lands with a new commercial and residential mixed-use project.

BACKGROUND

3A brief history of this matter is as follows:

a. the Tribunal convened a series of Case Management Conferences which lead to a Settlement Hearing on March 23, 2022 with respect of the City’s failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Act and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pursuant to s. 34 (11) of the Act.

b. On April 13, 2022 the Tribunal issued a decision allowing the appeals of the Appellant in part and approved the OPA and ZBA in principle subject to conditions.

c. On August 12, 2022 the Tribunal issued a decision that amended certain conditions found in the April 13, 2022 Tribunal decision, directed a go forward strategy for the last remaining appeal being the draft PoS and noted the effective date of the matter before it is July 27, 2022.

d. A final Order was issued by the Tribunal on August 12, 2022 with an effective date of August 10, 2022 allowing in part and amending both the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law 569-2013 in the manner set out in the attachments to that decision.

4Interested persons are encouraged to review the April 13, 2022 decision of the Tribunal or Mr. Hoff’s Affidavit for a complete description of the Site Context as required.

5All Parties are in attendance as noted under appearances. Parties met the timelines directed by the Tribunal in its July 2022 decision and have consented to the draft PoS prepared by Speight, Van Nostrand and Gibson Ltd. dated September 9, 2022 and the Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision. The Tribunal is informed by Mr. Laskin on behalf of Calloway REIT that they have no objections to the submitted planning instruments. Therefore, the Tribunal is in a position to address the last remaining appeal with respect of the draft PoS and Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision for the subject lands.

6Counsel for the Applicant, Ms. Tomasella provided background to assist the Tribunal and Parties. She 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 Benjamin Hoff marked as Exhibit 2.

7The Tribunal has two instruments for consideration at this hearing:

a. the draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Speight, Van Nostrand and Gibson Ltd. dated September 9, 2022 marked as Exhibit 3; and

b. the Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision marked as Exhibit 4 and prepared by the City and Appellant.

LAND USE PLANNING POLICY

8Testimony is heard from one planning witness, Mr. Benjamin Hoff. 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. The following is taken from Mr. Hoff’s oral or written testimony. His evidence is supported by a multi-disciplinary project team.

9Mr. Hoff confirmed with reasons that the draft PoS and Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision meet the requisite Provincial and Municipal policy including the following:

a. are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) 2020;

b. conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 and Amendment 1, 2020 (collectively “Growth Plan”).

c. conforms to the City of Toronto Official Plan;

d. conforms and implements the vision and policy direction of Site and Area Specific Policy 583 (“SASP 583”) and Site-specific ZBA approved by the Tribunal August 12, 2022;

e. meet the requirements of s. 51 of the Act and have appropriate regard for the criteria found in s. 51(24) which include matters of Provincial Interest, the adequacy of roads and infrastructure, compliance with prevailing policies and the requisite public interests as described.

10Mr. Hoff noted that the proposed development represents:

a. an appropriate mix of land uses and level of intensification;

b. is located in a designated growth area and represents a land use pattern and density to achieve an efficient use of land, infrastructure, public service facilities and serve to support transit use;

c. is in a strategic growth area within the City’s built up area and meets the minimum density targets for major transit station areas;

d. the provision of non-residential uses promotes economic development by providing opportunities for new employment;

e. a range and mix of housing options at an appropriate density;

f. a range of parks and open spaces are provided, and the requisite public streets are designed to facilitate active transportation; and

g. a complete community featuring a mix of land uses, range of housing options, access to a variety of transportation options, active transportation, parks, open spaces, and public service facilities in a compact built form.

11Specifically related to the draft PoS and Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision, Mr. Hoff noted salient considerations which include the following:

a. conforms with and implements SASP 583 and the Site-Specific ZBA approved by the Tribunal on August 12, 2022. The OPA and ZBA were determined to be good planning and in the public interest;

b. establishes a street and block structure that is fully in alignment with the street and block structure requisite policy documents that will service new development and provide connections to the surrounding area;

c. adheres to the established implementation and phasing provisions which are intended to ensure that new development is coordinated with the incremental implementation of the street network, the delivery of municipal services and transportation infrastructure and the conveyance of public parkland;

d. coincides with and aligns with the City’s preparation of the Golden Mile Secondary Plan – OPA 499 and the delivery of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT;

e. the lots are generally regular in shape, well sized and proportional for their intended use;

f. the approval process has identified and accounted for potential restrictions on the proposed development;

g. require the submission of a detailed Storm Water Management Report, and provision of municipal infrastructure to service the redevelopment (including infrastructure external to the subject lands) and establishes how this infrastructure is to be phased;

h. consideration for the provision of new school sites within the study area;

i. dedicates necessary lands for public purposes; and

j. is subject to Site Plan Control and its development review proceeds.

12The planner opined that the conditions imposed by the City with respect to the draft PoS are reasonable and have regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision.

13In conclusion, Mr. Hoff opined the proposed draft PoS and Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision satisfy and have appropriate regard for the requirements of the Act, as set out in s. 51 and the criteria found in s. 51(24), are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan and the City of Toronto Official Plan, SASP 583 and the provisions of the Site-Specific ZBA approved by the Tribunal.

14He stated the planning instruments have regard to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and the welfare of present and future inhabitants. In doing so, the draft PoS has appropriate regard to the criteria found in s. 51(24) of the Act. The Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision are considered reasonable having regard for the nature of development proposed for the subdivision.

15The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the planner for the Appellant in its entirety. The draft PoS, subject to the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, has had appropriate regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.

16Pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act, the Tribunal finds the Conditions of Draft Approval to be reasonable and appropriate for the proposed development.

TRIBUNAL FINDINGS

17The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of Mr. Hoff in its entirety and agrees with the reasons he provided that are found earlier in this decision. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the draft PoS and Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivisions meet all the relevant policy tests of s. 2 of the Act, the PPS, the Growth Plan, all relevant foundational policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, has appropriate regard to OPA No. 499 Golden Mile Secondary Plan, conforms to SASP 583 and the provisions of the Site-Specific ZBA for the subject lands.

18The Tribunal finds that the draft PoS has had appropriate regard of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act and the Conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision are reasonable and appropriate pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act. They represent good planning and are in the public interest.

19For these reasons, the Tribunal will allow the appeal and approves these instruments as agreed between the City and the Appellant as further described in the Order.

ORDER

20Accordingly, the Tribunal Orders.

a. That the appeal is allowed, and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Speight, Van Nostrand and Gibson dated September 9, 2022 and appended to this Order as Attachment 1 is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

b. That pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Toronto shall have the authority to clear the conditions draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act.

21In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the condition of the draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“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