Lamb Sterling Corp. v. Toronto (City), 2022 CanLII 30154

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

April 11, 2022

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-002507

(Formerly) PL210238

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Lamb Sterling Corp.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation:

Neighbourhoods

Proposed Designated:

Mixed Use Areas

Purpose:

To permit an 18 storey, 326-unit mixed-use development

Property Address/Description:

1405, 1407 1409 and 1409A Bloor Street West and 231, 231A and 229 Sterling Road

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.:

20 199975 STE 09 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-002507

Legacy Case No.:

PL210238

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002507

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL210238

OLT Case Name:

Lamb Sterling Corp. 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:

Lamb Sterling Corp.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Residential

Proposed Zoning:

Commercial Residential and Mixed Commercial Residential

Purpose:

To permit an 18 storey, 326-unit mixed-use development

Property Address/Description:

1405, 1407 1409 and 1409A Bloor Street West and 231, 231A and 229 Sterling Road

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipal File No.:

20 1999975 STE 09 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-002508

Legacy Case No.:

PL210239

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002507

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL210238

Heard:

March 17, 2022 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc.

Natalie Ast

Lamb Sterling Corp.

Eileen Costello

South Junction Triangle Grows

Cara Sweeny

Neighbourhood Association

City of Toronto

Derin Abimbola and Laura Bisset

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N.P. ROBINSON ON MARCH 17, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The within matter involves an application for a zoning by-law amendment and request to amend the official plan by Lamb Sterling Corp. (“Applicant”) to construct an 18-storey mixed use building.

2The matter was subject to prior case management which resulted in Brett Rycombel and TSCC #2174 being granted participant status and the ability to give oral evidence before the Tribunal at the hearing of this matter.

3The Procedural Order issued by the Tribunal is silent on the timing and circumstances of the evidence to be given by Mr. Rycombel and TSCC #2174 and the within decision seeks to clarify this point. The Procedural Order may be varied by the Tribunal at any time as described at paragraph 1 of the Procedural Order.

4The Tribunal may call a participant as a witness to give oral evidence pursuant to Section 18 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act which reads:

18 (1) At any stage of a proceeding, the Tribunal may,

(a) examine any of the following persons:

(i) a party to the proceeding,

(ii) a witness in the proceeding, or

(iii) a person who has made a submission to the Tribunal with respect to the proceeding, other than a party;

(b) require a party to the proceeding to produce evidence or a witness for examination by the Tribunal; or

(c) require a person referred to in subclause (a) (iii) to produce evidence for examination by the Tribunal.

5A witness called by the Tribunal is subject to cross-examination.

6The Tribunal therefore directs that Mr. Rycombel and TSCC #2174 be called as witnesses of the Tribunal after the evidence of all other parties, but before any reply evidence from the Appellant and directs that Attachment 4 of the Procedural Order be updated to reflect this.

7The matter was set for a hearing on Tuesday, October 18, 2022 to Friday, November 4, 2022 for 14 days.

8Parties 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/296327581

Access Code: 296-327-581

9Parties 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.

10Persons 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.

11Individuals 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.

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the updated Procedural Order attached as Schedule “A” of the within decision issue.

13The Member is not seized for the purpose of the hearing.

“N.P. Robinson”

N.p. Robinson

VICE-CHAIR

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.

OLT-22-002507 – Schedule “A”

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Lamb Sterling Corp.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation:

Neighbourhoods

Proposed Designated:

Mixed Use Areas

Purpose:

To permit an 18 storey, 326-unit mixed-use development

Property Address/Description:

1405, 1407 1409 and 1409A Bloor Street West and 231, 231A and 229 Sterling Road

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.:

20 199975 STE 09 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-002507

Legacy Case No.:

PL210238

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002507

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL210238

OLT Case Name:

Lamb Sterling Corp. 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:

Lamb Sterling Corp.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Residential

Proposed Zoning:

Commercial Residential and Mixed Commercial Residential

Purpose:

To permit an 18 storey, 326-unit mixed-use development

Property Address/Description:

1405, 1407 1409 and 1409A Bloor Street West and 231, 231A and 229 Sterling Road

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Municipal File No.:

20 1999975 STE 09 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-002508

Legacy Case No.:

PL210239

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002507

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL210238

Procedural Order

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 10 a.m. Parties and participants are directed to the following link to access the video hearing:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/296327581

Audio-only telephone line: Toll Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391

Access Code: 296-327-581

3. The length of the hearing is fourteen (14) days. The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The procedural order deadlines are found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the Parties' consent or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. A final Case Management Conference may be scheduled for a status update for the hearing, approximately 30 days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing, to scope issues and evidence for the hearing, and to refine and finalize the Work Plan for the hearing.

8. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal by no later than December 17, 2021. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

9. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/video-hearing/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties at least one-hundred and twenty (120) days before Expert Witness Statements are to be filed in accordance with paragraph 15 (on or before Thursday April 21, 2022). The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing.

11. A Party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered at least one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Monday June 20, 2022). A Party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae, the witness's Acknowledgment of Expert's Duty Form, and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges to the qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or (on or before Friday July 8, 2022) (100 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

12. Expert witnesses of the same discipline shall have a meeting at least ninety (90) days prior to the hearing (on or before Wednesday July 20, 2022) to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts' meeting, the experts shall prepare a list of agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing and provide this list to all of the Parties at least sixty (60) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Friday August 19, 2022), if agreement is reached.

13. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of expert witness statements must be provided as in paragraph 14. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in paragraph 14.

14. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the Party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 15. A Party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 15.

15. At least sixty (60) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing, (on or before Friday August 19, 2022) the Parties shall deliver copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the Tribunal, the other Parties and the City Clerk in accordance with paragraph 24.

16. At least sixty (60) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing, (on or before Friday August 19, 2022) a Participant shall deliver copies of their written Participant statement to the Tribunal, the Parties and the City Clerk, in accordance with paragraph 24. A Participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. At least thirty-six (36) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Monday September 12, 2022), the Parties may deliver to all other Parties, the Tribunal, and the City Clerk a written response to any written evidence.

18. At least thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Friday September 16, 2022) the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to the OLT case coordinator and all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, and all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties fifteen (15) days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A Party who provides a witness's written evidence to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The Parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing (on or before Friday September 16, 2022) with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Hearing Plan”). The Hearing Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Hearing Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

22. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before Wednesday September 28, 2022 (twenty (20) days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing). One hard copy of the joint document book shall be filed with the Tribunal as soon as possible in advance of the hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with paragraph 24.

23. At the time of cross-examination, the Parties shall provide to all Parties and the Tribunal, in password protected format, any documents that will be used by the Party in the cross-examination of an opposing Party’s witness, unless the presiding member directs otherwise. The password protected documents shall only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other Parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing.

24. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Paragraph 24 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

25. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

26. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

27. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Thursday April 21, 2022

(120 days before exchange of expert witness statements)

Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)

Monday June 20, 2022

(120 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

Friday July 8, 2022

(100 days prior to hearing)

Challenges to qualifications of witnesses, if any

Wednesday July 20, 2022

(90 days prior to hearing)

Experts meeting prior to this date, if any

Friday August 19, 2022

(60 days before hearing)

Exchange of witness statements and expert witness statements; Exchange of agreed statement of facts, if any; and Exchange of participant statements

Monday September 12, 2022

(36 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of written response to evidence

Friday September 16, 2022

(30 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of visual evidence, if any; and File hearing plan with the Tribunal

Wednesday September 28, 2022

(20 days prior to hearing)

Finalize and file joint document book

Tuesday October 18, 2022

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

list of parties and participants

A. PARTIES

PARTIES

COUNSEL

Lamb Sterling Corp.

Aird & Berlis LLP

Brookfield Place

181 Bay Street, Suite 1800

Toronto, ON M5J 2T9

Eileen Costello

Email: ecostello@airdberlis.com

Tel: (416) 865-4740

City of Toronto

Legal Services

Metro Hall

55 John Street, 26^th Floor

Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Derin Abimbola

Email: derin.abimbola@toronto.ca

Tel: (416) 392-8047

Laura Bisset

Email: laura.bisset@toronto.ca

Tel: (416) 392-8782

221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc.

Overland LLP

5255 Yonge Street

Suite 1101

Toronto, ON M2N 6P4

Daniel Artenosi

Email: dartenosi@overlandllp.ca

Tel: (416) 730-0302

South Junction Triangle Grows

(info@southjtgrows.org)

Cara Sweeny (Counsel)

Email: cara.sweeny@gmail.com

Tel: (416) 277-1873

Cristina Costa (Agent)

Email: cristina.peter@utoronto.ca

Tel: (416) 333-7037

B. PARTICIPANT

Albert Malkin

Email: Albertmalkin80@gmail.com

Amy Saracino Couto

Email: amy.saracino@globalnews.ca

Brett Rycombel

Email: brycombel@hotmail.com

Daniela Pirraglia

Email: danielapirraglia@gmail.com

Elizabeth Littlejohn

Email: elizlit@gmail.com

Irmina Ayuyao

Email: irmina@woolrich.name

Julie Ford

Email: julie.ford@gmail.com

Justin Trent

Email: j.a.trent@gmail.com

Karen Dick

Email: gorbals48@gmail.com

Katherine German

Email: katiegerms@gmail.com

Kaya Tache-Green

Email: kayaveassaf@gmail.com

Linda Klepp & Ian Mclanren

Email: lindaklepp@hotmail.com

Mary Macdonald

Email: mary1400@gmail.com

Pamela Brittain

Email: brownstones2174@gmail.com

Pamela Vasiliu

Email: pvasiliu@me.com

Rupert Ong

Email: rupert.ong@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any Party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the OLT having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the OLT.

A. City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interests set forth in Section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly:

a) 2(h) – orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

b) 2(r) – the promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant?

2. Would the approval of the proposed development, the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By­law Amendment have regard for any information and material received by City Council, as required by Section 2.1(2) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

3. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) as required by Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, including, but not limited to, Sections 1.1 and 4.0, reading the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) in its entirety and applying the relevant policies?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)

4. Do the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with, and not conflict with, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including, but not limited to, Sections 1.2.1, 2.2.2, and 5.2.5, reading A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) in its entirety and applying the relevant policies?

Redesignation of a Portion of the Site

5. Is the proposed redesignation of lands, currently designated Neighbourhoods, to Mixed Uses Areas consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan? Is the proposed development within lands currently designated Neighbourhoods contextually appropriate?

City of Toronto Official Plan

6. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan, and does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including, but not limited to, the following Sections:

a) 2.2.3 Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors;

b) 2.3.1 Healthy Neighbourhoods;

c) 2.4 Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change;

d) 3.1.1 The Public Realm;

e) 3.1.2 Built Form;

f) 3.1.3 Built Form- Building Types;

g) 3.1.5 Heritage Conservation;

h) 3.2.1 Housing;

i) 3.2.2 Community Services & Facilities;

j) 4.1 Neighbourhoods;

k) 4.5 Mixed Use Areas; and

l) 5.1.1 Height and/or Density Incentives.

Planning Framework & Design Guidelines

7. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard to the Bloor Street Study Planning Framework?

8. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for and meet the intent and purposes of the applicable City of Toronto Guidelines, particularly:

a) Tall Building Design Guidelines;

b) Mid-rise Building Performance Standards;

c) Townhouse & Low-Rise Apartments Guidelines;

d) Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities;

e) Retail Design Manual;

f) Streetscape Manual;

g) Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities;

h) Development Infrastructure Policy and Standards (DIPS); and

i) Complete Streets Guidelines?

Built Form and Public Realm

9. Does the proposed development represent good and appropriate land use planning and urban design, having regard to matters such as:

a) The provincial and municipal policy framework identified in this issues list;

b) Fit with the existing and planned context; and

c) The built form, massing and scale, building heights and design, including the impact on:

(i) privacy and overlook concerns into the abutting properties;

(ii) gradual transition in relation to the scale and character of the surrounding area, including the Neighbourhoods to the west; and

(iii) sky-view and sunlight penetration into the public realm, including streetscape;

d) The proposed setbacks and stepbacks;

e) The proposed height of the base (podium) building; and

f) The proposed shadow impacts on the abutting Neighbourhoods areas and on the public realm?

10. Is the proposed built form on the site appropriate along the Avenues?

11. Would the proposed development, if approved, create an inappropriate built form precedent for other development along Bloor Street West, and which may result in a cumulative impact on the character of this area in the form of tower separation, privacy and overlook issues, and shadow and wind impacts?

12. Does the proposed development contribute to a well-connected, walkable community with a comfortable, attractive and vibrant, and safe and accessible public realm along Bloor Street West and Ruttan Street? Does the proposed development have appropriate public frontage for access/address purposes?

13. Does the proposed development provide for appropriate transition to adjacent Neighbourhood areas in terms of height and scale as required in the Official Plan?

14. Does the proposed development provide for appropriately sized two- and three-bedroom units?

Orderly Development of the Site and Coordination with Adjacent Landowners

15. Does the proposed development enhance and expand the public realm through the conveyance of land to the City to widen and extend Ruttan Street south to Sterling Road, in coordination with the redevelopment application at 221-227 Sterling Road?

16. Should the location and configuration of the proposed parkland conveyance be coordinated with the parkland conveyance for the redevelopment application at 221-227 Sterling Road, such that both conveyances can function together as a single public park, to the satisfaction of the City, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act, and the City's Parkland Dedication Bylaw (Chapter 415, Article III of the Municipal Code)?

Heritage Conservation

17. Is the proposed development designed to mitigate visual and physical impacts on the cultural heritage values, attributes and character of adjacent properties, which have been identified through the Bloor Street Study as having potential heritage significance, in accordance with Section 3.1.5.14 of the Official Plan?

Transportation and Parking

18. Have all the transportation issues identified in the memo dated February 22, 2021 been adequately addressed, including:

a) Has the extent of the proposed access, loading, and car elevator been reduced and reconfigured to limit impacts on the public realm and to accommodate on-site queueing in association with the operational needs of the proposed car elevators;

b) Does the proposed development provide sufficient vehicular parking;

c) Does the development implement an appropriate Transportation Demand Management plan that demonstrates a reduction of proposed auto driver trips, and which justifies the proposed vehicular parking rate; and

d) Are the proposed bicycle parking spaces conveniently and easily accessible? Amenity Space

19. Does the proposal make adequate provision for pet amenities?

Public Interest and Good Planning

20. Are the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments good planning and in the public interest?

21. Is the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in the public interest and does it provide for good planning and good urban design"?

22. In the event the proposed development is approved by the Tribunal, in whole or in part, should the Applicant and the City be given the opportunity to reach agreement on the provision of appropriate community benefits pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act?

Conditions

23. If the proposal is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's Order be withheld until as the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal has received confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

a) The proposed Official Plan Amendment is finalized to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

b) The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is finalized to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor, including but not limited to:

a. Provision for space within the development for the installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, for both storm and sanitary service connections, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and the General Manager, Transportation; and

b. Securing the replacement rental dwelling units and rents, the tenant relocation and assistance plan and any other rental housing-related matters in conformity with Section 3.2.1.6 of the Official Plan, if it is confirmed that there are six or more existing rental units on the site;

c) The Owner has submitted a complete application for approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision to implement the widening and extension of Ruttan Street and the parkland conveyance;

d) The Owner has addressed all outstanding engineering issues identified in the memorandum dated February 22, 2021, and any other comments that may arise further to the review of materials submitted as part of the process to address the issues set out in the memorandum dated February 22, 2021 from Engineering and Construction Services, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

e) The Owner has provided a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Assessment, satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

f) The Owner has made satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services and has entered into a financially secured agreement for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development, according to studies accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services;

g) A third party peer review of the submitted Transportation Noise and Vibration Feasibility Assessment and Land Use Compatibility Study has been undertaken, at the expense of the Owner, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

h) If confirmed by City Planning staff that a Rental Housing Demolition application is required, the Owner has submitted a Rental Housing Demolition application in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code and pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to allow for the demolition of six or more existing rental dwelling units at 1407 and 1409 Bloor Street West; and City Council has approved such application;

i) The Owner has provided revised Landscape Plans and associated Reports, and any required permits and fees to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Tree Protection and Plan Review;

j) The Owner and the City have secured appropriate community benefits in consultation with the Ward Councillor, together with any matters to be secured as a matter of convenience, with the final allocation and distribution to be determined by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the Owner and the City have entered into and registered on title to the property an agreement to secure those benefits, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act; and

k) The Owner has entered into and registered one or more agreements with the City, securing rental housing related matters, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division and the City Solicitor.

B. 221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc.

1. Does the proposed Development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular:

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

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

(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities;

(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?

2. Is the proposed Development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), in particular:

a. Policy 1.1.1 (g)

b. Policy 1.5.1

c. Policy 1.6.7.1

3. Does the proposed Development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), in particular:

a. Policy 2.2.1(4)

b. Policy 3.1

c. Policy 3.2.1

d. Policy 3.2.2

e. Policy 3.2.3(4)

f. Policy 4.2.5(2)

g. Policy 4.2.10(1)

h. Policy 5.2.5(6)

4. Does the proposed Development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the City of Toronto Official Plan, in particular:

a. Policy 2.3.1

b. Policy 2.4.14

c. Policy 3.1.1(1) to (3), (6) to (9), (15), (18), (19)

d. Policy 3.2.3 (1)

5. Does the proposed development contribute to a well-connected, walkable community with a comfortable, vibrant, safe and accessible public realm? Should the proposed development be modified to improve the connectivity and porosity from Bloor Street West through to the existing neighbourhood?

6. Will the Development and Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment result in coordinated development in the surrounding area, and in particular with the neighbouring property at 221-227 Sterling Road (the “Neighbouring Property”)?

7. Should the proposed development and Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment be modified to expand the public realm through the conveyance of lands to widen and extend Ruttan Street south to Sterling Road, in coordination with the redevelopment proposed on the Neighbouring Property through City of Toronto Application Nos. 21 151438 STE 09 SB and 21 151444 STE 09 OZ (the “Neighbouring Applications”)?

8. Should the location and configuration of the proposed parkland conveyance be coordinated with the parkland conveyance proposed in the Neighbouring Applications?

9. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment be modified to require that the owner contribute its proportionate share for the cost of new infrastructure planned for the area, including hard and soft costs and land costs (the “Proportionate Financial Contribution”), before proceeding with development? Should the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment incorporate an (H) Holding Symbol with conditions requiring that prior to lifting the H symbol the owner shall either provide or make satisfactory arrangements to secure its contribution (including its Proportionate Financial Contribution) to the extension of Ruttan Street to Sterling Road and the coordinated provision of new public parkland with the Neighbouring Property?

10. In the event the Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the Tribunal require that prior to the Tribunal’s final Order issuing, the owner shall contribute or make satisfactory arrangements to secure the owner’s proportionate contribution (including its Proportionate Financial Contribution) to the extension of Ruttan Street and the coordinated provision of new parkland with the Neighbouring Property?

11. Will the proposed development negatively impact the redevelopment potential of the Neighbouring Property and/or the Neighbouring Applications?

12. Are the proposed Development and Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and urban design and in the public interest?

C. South Junction Triangle Grows

South JT Grows (SJTG) agrees with the issues as stated by the City of Toronto.

SJTG adds the following issues:

REDESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF THE SITE

1. Is the purpose of the redesignation from Neighbourhoods to Mixed Uses Areas consistent with its proposed use? Will the proposal include uses other than residential? Does the proposed development provide real opportunities for commercial, retail and/or other public facilities?

2. How does the design proposal for the Neighbourhoods section of the build conform with the surrounding community in terms of height, density and design?

BUILT FORM AND PUBLIC REALM

3. How does the proposed built form address the lawful use and enjoyment of the abutting properties?

4. How does the proposed development impair the access to sunlight for the abutting homes, business and neighbourhood?

5. How does the proposed development interfere with the privacy of the abutting homes?

6. What will the impact of the proposed development be on noise reflection to the neighbouring properties?

7. What is the impact of the development on other environmental issues (heat island, wind tunnel etc.)?

8. How does the proposed development adequately support the needs of the community with larger family sized units (2-3 bedroom units)?

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO NEIGHBOURHOOD LAND-OWNERS

9. What is the effect on the proposed development in the event that 221-227 Sterling Rd (Sterling Lofts) remains as is? How will the proposed development be impacted by the inability to extend Ruttan Street to the south?

10. Is there adequate green space/ amenities without the development of Sterling Lofts?

11. How does the proposed development fit within the larger context of the proposed and approved developments in the area? Can the neighbourhood support this development in addition to the 6-7 other proposed developments?

12. How does the proposed development address safety issues raised by the proposed development particularly with respect to balconies and rooftop public space? How does the proposed development address safety issues raised during the construction phase?

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES

13. What are the current deficits in the surrounding neighbourhood with respect to Community Services and Facilities? How does the proposed development deal with pre-existing shortages of community services in the neighbourhood? (eg, childcare, public schools, and lack of public space)?

14. How does the proposed development address the lack of green space in the community?

CONSTRUCTION

15. What will impact of construction be on the abutting and neighbouring properties? What issues might arise and how will those be addressed? What will the impact of construction noise and debris be on the neighbouring properties?

16. How will construction of the proposed development impact traffic and parking in the neighbourhood?

TRAFFIC

17. Does the traffic study consider the cumulative impact of already approved, but not yet constructed developments in the neighbourhood (150-181 Sterling)? Given the cumulative effects of these developments, in addition to the current proposal, how does this proposed development address or alleviate the current traffic flow problems on Sterling Rd and at the Sterling /Symington/ Bloor intersection?

18. Given that traffic on Ruttan Street can only make a right on Bloor to exit the street (as a left is not possible) and given that Sterling Road is not an adequate thoroughfare for increased Ruttan traffic (see issue number 1), how does this proposed development address or alleviate traffic flow on Ruttan Street/Sterling Road/Bloor Street?

19. Given the already present traffic flow issues on Sterling Rd and Ruttan Street, how will this proposed development address safety issues to small children, pets and pedestrians due to idling, speeding and increased traffic on these streets?

20. The modeling for traffic for this development was conducted during a pandemic when traffic and movement in the area was significantly decreased. How does the proposed development prepare for a return to the normal and increased traffic levels in this area?

21. Is the proposed development dependent on the extension of Ruttan Street through the Sterling Lofts? What is the impact should that not be approved?

22. How will the proposed development address access, parking and safety in relation to the residents and businesses located at Sterling Lofts?

TRANSPORTATION

23. What are the current and future limitations on the public transit system in the South Junction Triangle? How will this proposal support rather than burden the already over-taxed public transit system in this area?

24. How will this development support the long-term public transit infrastructure impacts of introducing this number of residents into a small area?

25. What is the evidence for the modal split within the Traffic Study which states that over 40% of residents will use walking as the main for transportation? Is this data in line with current condo and loft residents in this particular area? Given the decrease in public transit use and increase in car purchases and use during the pandemic, as well as the chance of future pandemic occurrences, how does this proposed development account for supporting radical changes in these proposed modal splits?

PARKING

26. How will the development address or alleviate the significantly over-permitted parking areas on Ruttan Street, Sterling Rd, and Perth Avenue (below Bloor St)?

27. The proposal suggests 0 visitor parking spaces. How will this proposed development support visitors of residents who use cars, given that streets are already overburdened?

28. Does the parking study consider the cumulative impact of approved but not yet constructed developments in the area? Given issue 6, how will this proposed development address or alleviate the increased parking needs within the area given the cumulative effects of already approved buildings and current residents, visitors and business owners?

29. How will this development address or alleviate the significant concerns of local business owners who are already unable to provide parking to their customers, and may be further constrained by increased traffic in the area due to this development?

30. The modeling for parking for this development was conducted during a pandemic when traffic and movement in the area was significantly lower and this modelling did not account for permit and non-permit parking. How does the proposed development prepare for a return to the normal and increased parking needs in this area?

31. Car parking elevators raise specific concerns about break downs and traffic back up forcing car owners to find alternative parking. How does the proposed development address these well identified concerns about car parking elevators?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Lamb Sterling Corp.

2. City of Toronto

3. 221 Sterling Road Holdings Inc.

4. South Junction Triangle Grows

5. Evidence of the Tribunal – Mr. Rycombel and Representative of TSCC 2174

6. Lamb Sterling Corp. (in reply, if necessary)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;

• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;

• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;

• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.