Markee Developments v. Toronto (City), 2022 CanLII 88415

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 23, 2022

CASE NO.: OLT-22-002710

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

Appellant: Markee Developments Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of 15 residential and mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 21 169802 NNY 17 OZ

Property Address: 3377 Bayview Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-002710

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002710

OLT Case Name: Markee Developments v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Markee Developments Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of 15 residential and mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 21 169802 NNY 17 OZ

Property Address: 3377 Bayview Avenue

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-002713

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002710

BEFORE:

STEVEN COOKE VICE-CHAIR

Friday, the 23rd day of September, 2022

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order set out as Attachment “A” to this Order shall be in full force and effect for the purposes of governing the required procedure leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on Monday, July 10, 2023.

“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.

ATTACHMENT “A”

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002710

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

Applicant/Appellant: Markee Developments Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of 15 residential and mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 21 169802 NNY 17 OZ

Property Address: 3377 Bayview Avenue

Municipality: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002710

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002710

OLT Case Name: Markee Developments v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/ Appellant: Markee Developments Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of 15 residential and mixed-use buildings

Reference Number: 21 169802 NNY 17 OZ

Property Address: 3377 Bayview Avenue

Municipality: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002713

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002710

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the Parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on July 10, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The length of the hearing will be fifteen (15) 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 generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. 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 is 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, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative should advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. 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 (Video Hearings - Tribunals Ontario - Environment & Land Division (gov.on.ca)).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 on or before January 13, 2023. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

10. 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 on or before March 17, 2023. For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified and must include a copy of the witness's curriculum vitae and Acknowledgment of Expert's Duty Form. Any challenges to the witness, including 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 before March 31, 2023.

11. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before April 7, 2023.

12. 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 this must be provided as in Section 15. 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 Section 15.

13. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before May 5, 2023, or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

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 Section 15.

15. On or before May 5, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (full disclosure including reports) to the other Parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with Section 23 below.

16. On or before May 26, 2023, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

17. On or before June 16, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion or unless otherwise on a timeline agreed to by the parties.

19. A Party who provides a witness’ 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.

20. On or before June 30, 2023, the Parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions.. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

21. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before June 23, 2023. 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 by the appellant with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.

22. At the time of cross-examination, the Parties shall provide to all Parties and the Tribunal, in a password protected format, any documents that will be used by the Party in 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 they are introduced as evidence at the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. 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 by email shall be governed by Rule 7.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
January 13, 2023	Appellant to provide revised plans, if any
March 17, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
March 31, 2023	Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
April 7, 2023	Experts Meeting and Agreed Statement of Facts
May 5, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
May 26, 2023	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
June 16, 2023	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
June 23, 2023	Preparation of Joint Document Book
June 30, 2023	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
July 10, 2023	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. Markee Developments Inc. David Bronskill, Goodmans LLP dbronskill@goodmans.ca 416.597.4299

2. City of Toronto Jessica Braun Jessica.Braun@toronto.ca 416-392-7237

3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Barbara Montgomery Barbara.montgomery@trca.ca 416-661-6600

4. Bayview Woods Neighbourhood Association Alan Heisey heisey@phmlaw.com 416-601-2702

PARTICIPANTS

1. Michael Lancefield mlancefield@hotmail.com

2. Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association Nathan Gomes Nathan.gomes@rogers.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

CITY OF TORONTO DRAFT ISSUES – 3377 Bayview Avenue

Provincial Statutory & Policy Requirements

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendments have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

2. Are the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019)

3. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with, and not conflict with, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019)?

City of Toronto Official Plan

4. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including but not limited to, Sections 2.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.3.1?

Holding Symbol

5. Is it appropriate and good planning to use a holding symbol or other requirement in the Zoning By-Law Amendment to phase development and ensure that infrastructure and community facilities are provided in tandem with development?

Site Specific Issues

Land Use

6. Does the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment adequately contribute to creating a complete community?

7. Does the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment adequately contribute to creating a complete community, in relation to the proposed non-residential gross floor area proposed?

Site Organization

8. Does the proposed site organization, including the location of buildings, setbacks, location of non-residential uses and servicing locations, the location of parks, the manner in which the public realm elements fit within the broader area, and in consideration of the future public realm framework, serve to create a development that will adequately function as a complete community?

Heritage

9. Does the proposed development address the impacts of the proposal on the cultural heritage value of the property?

Built Form

10. Are the building heights of the proposed development and for the zoning by-law amendment good planning? Is the proposed height appropriate for the site?

11. Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment provide for a built form that is good planning? Is the proposed built form appropriate in terms of massing and transition?

Housing

12. Does the proposed development reflect the Official Plan's city-wide goals of providing a full range of housing in terms of form, tenure, and affordability?

Natural Heritage

13. Does the proposed development conform to the policies of the Official Plan as it relates to the natural heritage system, the natural environment, and parks and open spaces?

Infrastructure

14. Does the proposal provide the appropriate infrastructure to support the proposed development in context of the anticipated increase in population and employment and to provide the various buildings with direct public street frontage?

Parking

15. Is the proposed parking supply appropriate for this site?

Sun and Shadow

16. Is the shadow impact of the proposed development on the public realm, streets, open spaces, and the proposed parks acceptable?

Wind

17. Is the wind impact of the proposed development acceptable? In particular on the public realm, streets, open spaces, proposed public parks, and outdoor amenity areas.

Amenity Space

18. Does the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment provide sufficient indoor and outdoor amenity space?

Parkland

19. As it relates to parkland, does the proposed development and proposed parkland dedication:
    1. Conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan?
    2. Are of an appropriate size, location and configuration been proposed under Section 42 of the Planning Act?
    3. Been provided which conforms to Chapter 415 Article III of the Toronto Municipal Code?

Order if Approved

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

21. In the event the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, what conditions would be appropriate and should the Tribunal Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied:

A. The official plan and zoning by-law amendment has been prepared in a content and form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

B. The City has advised that any building envelope changes to address the findings of the wind tunnel study have been made to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division;

C. The City has confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity from the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or the determination of whether holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment;

D. The owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Engineering and Construction Services as they relate to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and construction Services; and

E. where applicable community benefits and other matters in support of the development are to be secured in a Section 37 Agreement executed by the owner and registered on title to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

TRCA Draft Issues List – 3377 Bayview Ave

Is the proposed amendment consistent with Sections 2.1 (Natural Features) and Section 3.1 (Natural Hazards) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

Is the proposed amendment in conformity with the Natural Heritage System policies of the Toronto Official Plan?

Have all natural heritage features and all slope/erosion hazards been appropriately delineated and protected, with all applicable buffers applied?

Does the proposed ZBA demonstrate that all future building maintenance will be accommodated within the proposed property limits?

Has a minimum 10-metre setback been provided for the proposed building (above and below grade) measured inland from the stable top of bank?

Does the Zoning By-law Amendment identify an acceptable natural heritage system including buffers within an Open Space block, and are appropriate Zoning By-law categories assigned to the block?

Are the natural heritage features, natural hazards and buffer block appropriately identified for conveyance to a public agency for long-term preservation?

Does the proposed Storm Water Management scheme meet the TRCA’s Storm Water Criteria and the City of Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Plan Guidelines?

Preliminary Issues List of Bayview Woods Neighbourhood Association

Heritage Issues

1. Is 3377 Bayview Avenue/Tyndale College a site of heritage significance under the Provincial Policy Statement Part IV Section 2.6 Clauses 2.6.1?

2. Can 3377 Bayview Avenue be defined as a Built Heritage Resource and a Cultural Heritage Landscape as defined in the P.P.S? If so, should the site be conserved in the manner as defined in the P.P.S.?

3. Is it premature and inconsistent with the PPS to approve the proposed development applications if a designation process for this property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act has not occurred?

4. Under the power to designate a property of provincial significance under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act using the criteria listed under Ontario Regulation 09/06 to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of a property before making decisions about municipal designation of a property, is the City of Toronto obliged to implement these provisions and evaluate the subject site prior to permitting a development application to move ahead? Would it be premature, and inconsistent with the PPS, for the Tribunal to approve the proposed development applications prior to the investigation of the property to determine if it should be designated by the City of Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act?

5. Does the absence of appropriate design controls in the development applications or alterations to a site which is of potential heritage significance conform to Section 3.1.5 of the City of Toronto Official Plan (consolidated to June 2015) related to Heritage Conservation - namely clauses 3.1.5.2; 3.1.5.3; 3.1.5.4; 3.1.5.5; 3.1.5.10; 3.1.5.14; 3.1.5.22; 3.1.5.23; 3.1.5.25; 3.1.5.26; 3.1.5.27; 3.1.5.28; 3.1.5.43; 3.1.5.48?

6. Do the proposed planning instruments provide appropriate and sufficient design and density controls to the overall site in light of its heritage attributes, its value as a Cultural Heritage Landscape and potential for designation?

7. Do the proposed development applications have regard to section 1.1 (c) of the Ontario Planning Act amended to 30 June 2022 regarding integrating matters of Provincial Interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions - namely heritage?

8. Do the proposed development applications have regard to Part I Section 2 (d) of the Ontario Planning Act amended to 30 June 2022 regarding ) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest?

9. Has the Appellant submitted a sufficient Heritage Assessment for the proposed development applications that has been peer reviewed by a a qualified heritage consultant to verify its conclusions and analysis that support the applications?

10. Do the proposed development applications conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe including policies 1.2.1; 4.1; 4.2.7?

11. Does Tyndale College constitute a built heritage resource under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe? Do the property and buildings at 3377 Bavyiew Avenue constitute a cultural heritage landscape and or cultural heritage resources under the definitions of the Growth Plan?

12. Should new buildings on the site be less in height than the existing Motherhouse? Does the proposed development respect and address important views and the relationships of the existing buildings including the Motherhouse to the landscape features?

13. Has the site been properly evaluated to determine the design links between the natural landscape and the built form? Should the planning instruments proposed incorporate design parameters to ensure that any potential development of the property have regard for the interrelationship of the natural and built landscape as recommended by the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, second edition, Chapter 4, to which the City of Toronto is a signatory?

14. Does the proposed development have proper regard in terms of the relationship of new structures to the original built elements of the site and in so doing does the development acknowledge and respect primary view corridors to and from the existing built form and to and through the existing natural landscape in a manner that conserves the overall design intent of the original site?

15. Does the proposed built form acknowledge the original built form on the site by means of appropriate placement of the new structures; appropriate integration of circulation routes (both vehicular and pedestrian) with the original landscape and built form; and appropriate step backs and setbacks that, overall, conserves the site and its interrelationships including the scale and placement of the original structures within the landscape as recommended by the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, second edition, Chapter 4.1, which the City of Toronto has adopted?

16. Does the materiality and design of new structures on site reflect the original materiality and aesthetics of the original buildings and their scale in a manner that does not draw visual attention at the expense of a clear understanding of the original cultural landscape in a manner that conserves the overall aesthetic of the place as recommended by the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, second edition, Chapter 4.3?

17. Does the design of new interventions/development proposed, whether to the original built form, the original landscape and the relationship of the new form to the original meet the intent of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Chapter 4.1?

18. If the urban design approach to the site does not meet the intent of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, second edition, which the City of Toronto has adopted, should the Tribunal apply these standards to the proposed planning instruments in relation to the proposed overall design to ensure that adjustments are made to the design in manner that is generally in conformance with the Guidelines?

19. Are the policies of the proposed Official Plan amendment and provisions of the zoning bylaw amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and do they ensure that the cultural value of the site is conserved within the meaning of the Provincial Policy Statement and developed from an understanding of the site, its interrelationships, and respect for its history and cultural importance in a manner that will direct and guide the development proposal in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, second edition?

Transportation Issues

20. Does the proposed development appropriately address requirements for active transportation and specifically should the plan protect for/provide a dedicated cycle track on Bayview Avenue ultimately linking the site to the east-west Finch Hydro Corridor Trail and thereby to Finch Subway Station?

21. Is the proposed new signalised intersection on Bayview appropriately located as it is only 95m from an existing signalized intersection at Bayview and Garnier?

22. Are the developments assumptions for shifting auto demand from the site to transit appropriate and realistic given the site’s position which is not located within walking distance to any higher-order transit lines?

23. Do the vehicle trips assumptions made by the Applicant underestimate the vehicle trips generated by Tyndale Green?

24. Should a multi-modal split be determined by surveys conducted for vehicle trips or to a person-trips total?

25. Is it appropriate and good planning to develop and service the property based on private roads and is it good planning and in the public interest?

26. Should the development be serviced by a public road network?

Natural Heritage Issues

27. Does the proposed development conform to the policies of the Official Plan as it relates to the natural heritage system, the natural environment, and parks and open spaces?

28. Do proposed buildings 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, and 3C of the proposed development encroach within “Stable Top of Bank” setback limits of the TRCA? What is the appropriate setback from the stable top of bank?

29. What are the appropriate natural heritage setbacks for development on the site?

30. Does Building 3C of the proposed development encroaching on the 10+3m setback limits from the tree dripline and what is the required setback established by TRCA?

31. Does the proposal conform to City of Toronto Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-law, TRCA regulated area (stable top-of-bank) and City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 813 Article II (Street Trees By-law)?

32. Is the application consistent to, with the development standards and the protection of natural heritage systems?

Planning Issues

33. Is the proposed re-designation of land from "Neighbourhoods" to "Mixed Use" appropriate given the lack of proposed non residential GFA?

34. Is a mixed use designation appropriate in a stable single family neighbourhood with no non residential uses in close proximity?

35. Does the proposed development provide for sufficient setbacks, stepbacks and angular planes from the proposed multi-storey?

36. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate transition to existing single family homes?

Provincial Policy Statement

37. Is the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and specifically Policies 1.2.1, 1.5, 1.6.8, 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.6, 4.2 and 4.7?

Growth Plan

38. Does the application conform to, and not conflict with, the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (2020 consolidation), and specifically Policy 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.2.1, 2.2.4, 2.2.6 and 4.2.10(b)?

39. Does the proposal conform to policies relating to complete communities, natural heritage, and the implementation of appropriate development standards?

Official Plan

40. Does the application conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan and specifically Sections 2.3.1.4 (Healthy Neighbourhoods) 3.1.1 (The Public Realm) - as amended by OPA 479; 3.1.2 (Built Form) and 3.1.3 (Built Form - Tall Buildings) - as amended by OPA 480, 3.1.6 (Heritage Conservation – Archeological Resources), 3.2.3 (Parks and Open Spaces), 3.4 (The Natural Environment), 4.1 (Neighbourhoods); 4.3 (Parks and Open Space Areas); and 4.5 (Mixed Use Areas). Is the application consistent to, with the development standards and the protection of natural heritage systems?

41. Considering the scale of development and the existing and planning contexts, would it be appropriate for the City to undertake a planning study for the future drafting of a secondary plan area and related secondary plan policies?

Zoning By-law

42. Does the proposed zoning amendment conform to the Official Plan and Growth Plan, and is it consistent with the PPS? Specifically, Zone R3 (One-Family Detached Dwelling Third Density Zone) and Zone G (Greenbelt Zone) under North York Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended.

Design Guidelines

43. Does the proposed development appropriately and adequately implement the City of Toronto Mid-Rise and Tall Building Design Guidelines, Townhouse and Low-Rise Apartment Guidelines, Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities, Pet Friendly Design Guidelines for High Density Communities, Bird Friendly Guidelines and Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces (POPS)?

44. Is the site appropriate for a tall building/towers? In particular, is the site organization and built form of the proposed development appropriate, including building height, mass, scale, setbacks, separation distances, access location and servicing/ loading?

45. Are the proposed building heights appropriate given and the existing and planned contexts of the low-rise residential neighbourhoods surrounding the site?

46. Does the proposed heights respect the natural form of the surrounding area?

47. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and urban design having regard to:

    1. the provincial and municipal policy framework identified in this issues list.
    2. the height, mass, tower setbacks, separation distance, scale and density of the Proposal, including the impact of the height and tower setbacks on the following matters, without limiting the generality of the foregoing;
    3. Will the proposal result in negative shadow impacts, sky view and reduced sunlight penetration on open spaces and the public realm, including the streetscape?
    4. Will the proposal result in negative shadow impacts on direct sunlight and daylight on the nearby Neighbourhood areas?
    5. Does the Shadow Study conform to the requirements of the City’s terms of reference for a Sun/Shadow Study?
    6. Will the proposal result in an uncomfortable wind condition for users siting and walking during the summer and winter months?
    7. Given the site’s surrounding context, will the proposal provide an appropriate transition to abutting properties in Neighbourhood area, using a variety of measures including angular planes, the use of setbacks and stepbacks, and separation distances?
    8. Does the proposal provide for adequate housing mix and size that contributes to the full range of housing for broad range of households, including families with children?
    9. Will the proposal provide a safe and integrated local network of pedestrian movement intended to users of all ages and abilities?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Markee Developments Inc.
2. City of Toronto
3. TRCA
4. Bayview Woods Neighbourhood Association
5. Markee Developments Inc. in reply (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Meaning of Terms Used in the Procedural Order

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 authorization 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.