Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 15, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004296
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 415 Broadview GP Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit 8-storey tower on top of an existing church building
Reference Number: 21 251348 STE 14 OZ
Property Address: 415 Broadview Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004296
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004296
OLT Case Name: 415 Broadview GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 415 Broadview GP Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit 8-storey tower on top of an existing church building
Reference Number: 21 251348 STE 14 OZ
Property Address: 415 Broadview Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004297
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004296
Heard: February 7, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
415 Broadview GP Inc.
Rodney Gill David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Toronto
Matthew Longo Colin Dougherty
Neighbourhood Coalition of Lower Riverdale
Tom Grant* Mark Sheeley*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON FEBRUARY 7, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1On February 7, 2023, the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was heard in relation to appeals brought under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by 415 Broadview GP Inc. (“Applicant”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframes on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“Applications”) with respect to lands municipally known as 415 Broadview Avenue in the City (“Subject Property”).
2The purpose of the Applications is to facilitate a proposal by the Applicant to permit the construction of a 10-storey mixed-used building on the Subject Property, and specifically, to add eight (8) storeys to the church building that is currently there.
3The Tribunal canvassed the Parties, who confirmed that there was no issue with service of the Notice of CMC, and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Renata Ribeiro, sworn January 17, 2023, which was marked as Exhibit 1, and confirms that Notice of this CMC was properly given.
REQUESTS FOR STATUS
4The Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating a number of Party and Participant Status Requests.
5A Party Status Request was received from the Neighbourhood Coalition of Lower Riverdale (“NCLR”), a corporation representing the interests of some property owners in the surrounding community. NCLR raised concerns regarding the proposed development in relation to the character of the neighbourhood, voicing that the proposal, as is, would have a significant negative impact on the local community and on the quality of life of the residents in the area. The Tribunal found that NCLR has an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in making a fair and judicious determination. The Tribunal, on consent of the Parties, granted Party Status to NCLR.
6The Tribunal received two Participant Status Requests from Aleksandar Sasha Grujicic and Robin Linley. Mr. Grujicic raised concerns regarding the manner in which this proposal has been generated, parking, traffic, the proposed rezoning of the lot, as well as wind and environmental damage concerns. Mr. Linley raised concerns regarding impacts of the proposal on natural light, privacy, parking, traffic, and enjoyment of his backyard, as well as the inconsistent character of the proposal with the surrounding neighbourhood and existing building envelope. The Tribunal found that the two had an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the Proposal on the local community. The Tribunal, receiving no objection from the Parties, granted Participant Status to both Mr. Grujicic and Mr. Linley.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
7The Parties did not produce a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) or Issues List (“IL”) prior to the CMC.
8The City advised the Tribunal that the Subject Property had been listed as a heritage site, and the City intended to adopt a bylaw imminently to formally designate it as a Heritage Designated site. The Applicant, who had been aware of this development, advised that, as