Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 02, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002106 (Formerly) PL210257
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Referred by: 300 Bayview Ave. Ltd. & 1405768 Ont. Ltd.
Subject: Site Plan
Property Address/Description: 300 and 328 Bayview Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002106
Legacy Case No.: PL210257
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002106
Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210257
OLT Case Name: 300 Bayview Ave. Ltd. & 1405768 Ont. Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 22, 2022, by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 300 Bayview Ave. Ltd. & 1405768 Ont. Ltd. | A. Heisey |
| City of Toronto | M. Piel |
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to hear a status update with regard to an Interim Decision issued by the Tribunal on June 8, 2022.
2The Site Plan application seeks to develop the property known municipally as 300 and 328 Bayview Avenue, in the City of Toronto (“Subject Lands”) with an expanded five storey building to be used as a car dealership. The proposed expanded building is to relocate the existing parking and ground floor outside of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) regulated flood plain. The Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) being proposed is reflective of the existing building GFA with additional GFA permitted for additional parking.
INTERIM ORDER
3The Tribunal provided an Interim Order on June 8, 2022, which required the Appellant to satisfy the following conditions and provide the City with specific submissions:
(a) satisfy the conditions of approval for the site plan application to the satisfaction of the named City Official and as presented by the City in evidence as Appendix "4" to Exhibit 31 as modified by paragraph 11 of Exhibit 32;
(b) revise all necessary plans and drawings for the Tribunal's approval to illustrate the horizontal and vertical location of the active gas main on the site and resubmit the revisions to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Toronto & East York District for the City of Toronto in consultation with the Manager, Urban Forestry for the City of Toronto; and
(c) revise Drawing A2.0 (Ground Floor) to remove illustrations of the existing structure (above and below grade) on the site and resubmit the revised drawing to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Toronto & East York District for the City of Toronto.
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CONTEXT
4Through the status update, it became clear to the Tribunal that there has been a lack of communication between City departments and the Appellant and in fact a lack of cooperation by both Parties to move this matter forward to a Final Order.
Submission of Plans and Drawings
5It was identified that revised plans were initially submitted to the Tribunal and the City on April 11, 2022, which reflect the results of the daylighting exercise in accordance with the City’s request, and consistent with the Tribunal’s subsequent decision of June 8, 2022, and satisfying paragraph 73 (b) of the Interim Order, that the City has failed to acknowledge having received.
6The Appellant informed the Tribunal that these plans were forwarded to the City for a second time on June 24, 2022, as part of a complete package of plans and drawings, together with the combined Architectural, Civil and Landscape plans along with Floor Space Ratio reflecting the daylighting results and the removal of the existing foundation detail as directed by the Tribunal through paragraphs 73 (b) and (c) of the Interim Order.
7During the CMC, it was discussed that it would be a reasonable expectation that the City would provide final comments on the plans and drawings within 2 weeks following the date of the CMC. It appears at this time the City has remained unresponsive to the Appellant’s submissions on the finalization of the plans and drawings.
8Mark Piel, counsel for the City stated that Leontine Major, who had provided land use planning evidence on behalf of the City, has since retired and there have been many changes to City staff leaving a void in continuity. He also stated that the new City Planner assigned, Jeremy Humphrey would confirm receipt of the plans and drawings within 2 weeks of the CMC.
9The City solicitor advised that there was a typographical error and that a Record of Site Condition (“RSC”) would not be required and that a Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) as presented in evidence by Mr. Gibson in the hearing, (noted in the following paragraphs below), would be the only documents required by the City’s peer reviewer.
As per the City's Conveyance Policy, the City does not require an owner of land to file a Record of Site Condition with the Ministry prior to conveying lands to the City as a condition of Site Plan Approval provided various criteria are met. For conveyance lands greater than 100 square metres, but where the land use not changing and the average width of the conveyed lands is greater than 1.0 metre, a Record of Site Condition is not required to satisfy the Policy; however, the successful third-party peer review of environmental documentation (Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase Two ESA) is required to satisfy the requirements of the Policy.
Upon receiving the Phase One ESA, any additional environmental documents (Phase Two ESA, Risk Assessment, etc.), and the required supporting documents (Qualified Person Preliminary Statement Letter, Reliance Letter, etc.), the City's third party QP will ensure that the environmental investigations and documents satisfy the conditions of the policy and to conform to the standards of Ontario Regulation 153/04.
Reference Plans
10The Applicant indicated that the reference plan would be deposited on title so the peer reviewer can assess the report against lands to be conveyed in response to ESA Phase 1 and 2 and get back to the Applicant within two weeks of registration.
11In response, counsel for the City advised that the reference plan submitted to the City on February 7, 2022, is acceptable, however, the surveyor for the Applicant requires direct written confirmation from the City that the R-Plan is acceptable to the City before depositing. The Applicant requested that the appropriate City Official email the Applicant’s surveyor confirming that the R-Plan is acceptable to the City.
Site Plan Agreement
12It was noted during the CMC that the City would be agreeable to provide within the content of the site plan agreement, a revision to the 2-year time limit so that the Agreement expires 2 years after the issuance of the Final Order rather than the standard 2 years after the execution of the site plan agreement.
13Further, the City at this CMC agreed to provide completed draft of Site Plan Agreement within 2 weeks.
Demolition, Excavation and Below Grade Permits
14Mr. Piel commented on the question of the issuance of demolition, excavation and foundation permits indicated the Chief Building Official (“CBO”) makes these decisions and the City cannot bind the CBO in an agreement of site plan control.
15The Applicant having accepted the advice of Counsel will follow up with the Chief Building Official to better determine its position.
16The Tribunal having heard the from both Parties, encourages the Parties to have a more open and assistive dialogue and work together cohesively rather than in an ill effective, finger pointing manner to resolve the issues outstanding.
17To this end, the Tribunal recognizes that the City has had over 4 months to review plans and drawings and confirm receipt of the submissions. The City through this CMC has agreed to timelines for response to the Appellant that would move this matter forward in a more progressive manner. While it is understandable that the City has had a key member of staff retire, in all fairness to the Appellant and to the Tribunal process of a timely resolution, this matter needs to move forward and as such directs the Parties as follows.
DIRECTIONS
18The Tribunal directs that the City provide a response to the Appellant on the landscape plans and architectural drawings submitted originally on April 8, 2022, and resubmitted on June 24, 2022, by Monday, September 12, 2022.
19The Tribunal directs the City to provide a response to Appellant’s final Phase 1 and Phase 2 ESA’s one week after receipt by City peer reviewer as discussed at this CMC.
20The Tribunal further directs that the City provides a draft of a site plan agreement incorporating all schedules by Monday, September 12, 2022, at which time the Appellant is expected, by Monday, September 19, 2022, to respond to the City’s comments.
21A further CMC to provide a status update to the Tribunal will be held on a date to be set after the Case Coordinator canvasses both the Parties and the Tribunal Scheduler.
22Should the need arise, I may be spoken to with regard to these directions.
23This is the Order of the Tribunal.
“D. Chipman”
d. chipman
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.