CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001318

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): April 24, 2023

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: May 03, 2023

RE: 2715649 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Correction to: page 19, paragraph [50], omitting the Official Plan Amendment reference.

Originally:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and the City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 7625 and No. 569-2013 are hereby amended in principle.

Corrected to:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and Zoning By-law No. 7625 and No. 569-2013 are hereby amended in principle.

“Euken Lui” EUKEN LUI 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.

ISSUE DATE: April 24, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001318

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2715649 Ontario Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, of the former City of North York, and to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, of the City of Toronto – failure to make a decision by the City of Toronto

Existing Zoning: “General Commercial CI” under Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, of the former City of North York, and “Commercial Residential CR1.0 (c1.0; r1.0) SS3” under Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, of the City of Toronto

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (to be determined)

Purpose: To permit the development of a 12-storey mixed-use residential building with 206 dwelling units

Property Address/Description: 630-686 Finch Avenue East

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipal File No.: 20 188104 NNY 17 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001318

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001318

OLT Case Name: 2715649 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Subject: Site Plan

Referred by: 2715649 Ontario Inc.

Property Address/Description: 630-686 Finch Avenue East

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001318

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001319

Heard: March 27, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties 2715649 Ontario Ltd. City of Toronto

Counsel/Representative Jason Park Kasia Czajkowski

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS AND STEVEN COOKE ON MARCH 27, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter is before the Tribunal in respect of appeals brought by 2715649 Ontario Ltd. (“Applicant”), following the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to render a decision respecting applications to amend Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, of the former City of North York (“North York”), and to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, (together the “ZBA”), and an appeal for a Site Plan application (“Site Plan”) (together the “Appeals”). The Appeals are brought pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Planning Act”) and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act (“Toronto Act”).

2On August 7, 2020, the Applicant submitted the ZBA application to facilitate the development of a 12-storey mixed-use building with a height of 43.25 metres to the top of the roof and 48.75 metres to the top of the mechanical penthouse. It contained a total of 206 dwelling units, 897 square metres of non-residential gross floor area and 311 parking spaces within a three-level partially below grade garage behind the retail frontage facing Finch Avenue East. The total gross floor area was 28,333 square metres, resulting in a density of 2.97 times the area of the lot (the “Initial Proposal”).

3The subject property address is 630-686 Finch Avenue East (“Subject Property”), and the Appeals were originally scheduled as a Merit Hearing but subsequently converted into a Settlement Hearing when the Parties came to an agreement on all outstanding issues, following an extensive public consultation process.

4The Applicant submitted a without prejudice settlement offer on February 23, 2022 (“Settlement Proposal”) that was comprised of an 11-storey mixed-use building with a height of 37.35 metres to the top of the roof, a total of 238 dwelling units, 29,881 square metres of residential gross floor area, 1,334 square metres of non-residential gross floor area and 364 parking spaces. The total gross floor area is 31,015 square metres, resulting in a density of 3.25 times the area of the lot.

5On March 9, 2022, City Council adopted the City Solicitor’s recommendations in connection with the Settlement Proposal and instructed the City Solicitor and the City Planning department to attend the Tribunal hearing in support of a Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Proposal is now before the Tribunal for approval.

EXHIBITS AND WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

6Evidence was submitted in support of the Settlement Proposal and the submissions also included pertinent information upon which the Tribunal qualified Mr. Volpentesta as an expert in land use planning. Mr. Volpentesta submitted this through his witness statement marked as Exhibit 1.

7The Joint Documents Book submitted on consent of both Parties was marked as Exhibits 2 a) and 2 b).

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL EVIDENCE

8Mr. Volpentesta testified that in his professional planning opinion the Settlement Proposal constitutes good planning and recommended approval in principle of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment.

9Mr. Volpentesta testified that following the public consultation process, the Applicant filed a Site Plan application in respect of the proposed development on June 3, 2021, and the Appeals were both filed on August 16, 2021, because of the City Council’s neglect or failure to make a decision on the applications within the statutory timeframes.

10Following the Appeals, the Applicant and its consultants met with the surrounding community on September 14, 2021, to further discuss issues of concern, and the Applicant again met with the City’s Planning and Urban Design staff on October 27 and November 22, 2021, respectively, to review comments provided by City staff.

11Mr. Volpentesta testified that the Applicant is currently finalizing the Site Plan and related conditions with the City and is holding the Site Plan in abeyance subject to the Tribunal’s decision and the City’s further review.

PARTICIPANT STATUS AND CONCERNS

12Mr. Michael Lancefield, a local resident who was originally conferred Party status by the Tribunal, has withdrawn his Party status on January 20, 2023, and made request to be included as a Participant to these proceedings.

13After regular business hours, late in the evening on Friday, March 24, 2023, only the Tribunal received a 79-page Participant statement from Mr. Lancefield. The Parties did not receive the statement until the following Monday, the same day the hearing was scheduled to be heard. Counsel for the statutory Parties raised concerns that the late Participant submission was inappropriate, ill-timed, and was only being used as an attempt to further delay the settlement process.

14In the Tribunal decision issued January 12, 2023, Member Ng cautioned that it is the responsibility of individuals to adhere to the Procedural Order (“PO”) and states:

The Tribunal acknowledged that the added parties are lay people, self-represented and unfamiliar with the Rules. The Tribunal stressed that, despite this, the added parties should familiarize themselves and practise due diligence in complying with the PO.

15With this caution in mind, Mr. Lancefield had the obligation to follow the direction of the PO that stated Participant statements are due on or before January 30, 2023. It was the position of the Tribunal that Mr. Lancefield’s late submissions failed to meet his obligation to participate in the prescribed manner of the PO. While the Tribunal does allow for some flexibility for individuals that have withdrawn from Party status to Participant status to make their submissions, waiting nine weeks to do so is unreasonable. The Participant statement of Mr. Lancefield was not accepted, nor will it be considered in the deliberations of the Tribunal.

16Mr. Volpentesta stated that the Participants expressed several concerns during the public consultation process which included the following:

• Height and Density Precedent,
• Maintaining Healthy Neighbourhoods,
• Light, View and Privacy Impacts, and
• Mid-Block Connection.

17While these points encompassed many of the land use planning issues of concern in the community, there were other issues raised on an individual basis through the consultation process, that were ultimately addressed in the Settlement Proposal.

18In response to comments provided by City Planning, meetings with City staff and the local community, Mr. Volpentesta testified that the following key revisions to the proposal have been made and incorporated into the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal as referenced in Exhibit 1 paragraphs 171-184. Additionally, the witness opined that:

• The overall building mass was decreased by lowering its height, normalizing its shape and increasing its setbacks to adjacent properties. All building elements continue to fall entirely within a 45-degree angular plane measured from the closest Neighbourhood’s designated properties.
• The height of the proposal decreased from 12 storeys to 11 storeys with a total height of 37.35 metres that is generally equal to the right-of-way width of Finch Avenue East;
• The shape of the building has been reconfigured from a “W” shaped footprint to a more normalized footprint. As a result, the bulk of the building mass is concentrated further south with a closer relationship to Finch Avenue East;
• The building setback to the west property line has been increased from 3.5 metres to 5.5 metres;
• The site grading has been reconfigured at its west end to blend with existing grades, thereby reducing the visibility of retaining walls when viewed from adjacent properties and the public realm;
• A new Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) has been added to the north end of the subject site, fronting onto Banstock Drive;
• The mid-block connection has been updated for better visibility from the public realm and to provide direct access to the new POPS;
• The easterly driveway and vehicular drop-off area has been eliminated so that only one centrally located driveway at the proposed signalized “T” intersection along Finch Avenue East remains. All drop-off functions are now located within the ground/P1 level, screened from public view;
• A turnabout was introduced at the ground/P1 level for short term parking, taxis, Uber and deliveries; and
• As a result of the above noted revisions, all incremental shadowing has been eliminated from the rear yards of the houses along Banstock Drive during the spring and fall equinoxes.

MATTERS OF PROVINCIAL INTEREST, CITY OFFICIAL PLAN AND ANALYSIS

19Mr. Volpentesta opined that the application met all of the provincial guideline objectives including the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2020 (“Growth Plan”), and the City of Toronto’s Official Plan (“OP”). The mixed-use intensification on the subject site is supported by policy directions articulated in the PPS, the Growth Plan and the OP, all of which promote intensification on sites within the built-up urban area that are well served by municipal infrastructure, including transit.

PPS 2020

20Mr. Volpentesta proffered that the PPS provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. In accordance with s. 3(5) of the Planning Act, all decisions that affect a planning matter are required to be consistent with the PPS. In this regard, Policy 4.2 provides that the PPS “shall be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation.”

21Mr. Volpentesta opined that one of the key policy directions expressed in the PPS is to build strong communities by promoting efficient development and land use patterns. To that end, Part V of the PPS contains a number of policies that promote intensification, redevelopment and compact built form, particularly in areas well served by public transit. Policy guidelines 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.3 and 1.7.1, were specifically referenced in oral testimony. Section 2 of the PPS (2.1.1, 2.1.2. 2.14, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6) was also contemplated and properly addressed in the Settlement Proposal.

22In addition to these elements, it is the opinion of Mr. Volpentesta that the efficient use of infrastructure, particularly transit, is a key element of provincial policy (s. 1.6). Section 1.6.3 states that the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized, before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities. With respect to transportation systems, Policy 1.6.7.4 promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation. Mr. Volpentesta stated that the implementation of a pedestrian elevator combined with an indoor connection to Finch Avenue transit service was intended to reflect this access to transit emphasis, and also reflect accessibility concerns from the community.

23In summary, Mr. Volpentesta opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS, in particular, the policies relating to residential intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure.

Growth Plan

24It was the position of Mr. Volpentesta that the Growth Plan references the need to “optimize” the use of the land supply and infrastructure. The Growth Plan includes more detail about the objectives of a “complete community” and promoting transit-supportive development adjacent to existing and planned “frequent transit”.

25In reference to s. 2.1 of the Growth Plan, Mr. Volpentesta opined that the subject site would be considered to be part of a “strategic growth area” pursuant to the Growth Plan (i.e. a focus for accommodating intensification and higher-density mixed uses in a more compact built form). “Strategic growth areas” include urban growth centres, major transit station areas, and other major opportunities that may include infill, redevelopment, brownfield sites, the expansion or conversion of existing buildings, or greyfields. Lands along major roads, arterials, or other areas with existing or planned frequent transit service may also be identified as strategic growth areas. In this regard, the subject site is located along Finch Avenue East which is a major street that has access to frequent transit service every 15 minutes or less, in both directions throughout the day and into the evening.

26Furthermore, the Growth Plan requires municipalities to develop a strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout delineated built-up areas, which will, among other things, identify strategic growth areas to support achievement of the target and recognize them as a key focus for development, identify the appropriate type and scale of development in strategic growth areas and transition of built form to adjacent areas, and ensure lands are zoned and development is designed in a manner that supports the achievement of complete communities.

27In summary, Mr. Volpentesta opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the Growth Plan and, in particular, the policies that seek to optimize the use of land and infrastructure and to encourage growth and intensification in “strategic growth areas”, including those along “frequent transit” routes.

Toronto Official Plan

28Mr. Volpentesta stated that the Subject Property has effectively met the OP requirements since the OP for the amalgamated City was adopted on November 26, 2002 and was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on July 6, 2006.

29The witness referenced that Chapter 2 (Shaping the City) outlines the growth management strategy. It recognizes that:

Toronto’s future is one of growth, of rebuilding, of reurbanizing and of regenerating the City within an existing urban structure that is not easy to change. Population growth is needed to support economic growth and social development within the City and to contribute to a better future for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). A healthier Toronto will grow from a successful strategy to attract more residents and more jobs to the City.

30Additionally, the witness testified that s. 2.3.1 (Healthy Neighbourhoods) includes Policy 2.3.1(2) which requires that developments in Mixed Use Areas adjacent or close to Neighbourhoods be compatible with those Neighbourhoods, provide a gradual transition of scale and density, maintain adequate light and privacy for residents in those Neighbourhoods and decrease resulting traffic and parking impacts on adjacent residential streets.

31Mr. Volpentesta also referenced Policy 2.3.1(4) which provides that intensification of land adjacent to Neighbourhoods will be carefully controlled so that Neighbourhoods are protected from negative impact. Where significant intensification of land adjacent to a Neighbourhood or Apartment Neighbourhood is proposed, Council will determine, at the earliest point in the process, whether or not a Secondary Plan, area specific zoning by-law or area specific policy will be created in consultation with the local community following an Avenue Study, or area-based study.

32While the Application is not subject to an Avenue Study, the witness highlighted Policy 4.5(2) which sets out a number of criteria for development within Mixed Use Areas, including:

• creating a balance of high-quality commercial, residential, institutional and open space uses that reduces automobile dependency and meets the needs of the local community;
• providing for new jobs and homes for Toronto’s growing population on underutilized lands in the Avenues and other lands designated Mixed Use Areas;
• locating and massing new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, as necessary to achieve the objectives of the Plan, through means such as providing appropriate setbacks and/or a stepping down of heights, particularly towards lower scale Neighbourhoods;
• locating and massing new buildings so as to adequately limit shadow impacts on adjacent Neighbourhoods, particularly during the spring and fall equinoxes;
• locating and massing new buildings to frame the edges of streets and parks with good proportion and maintaining sunlight and comfortable wind conditions for pedestrians on adjacent streets, parks and open spaces;
• providing an attractive, comfortable and safe pedestrian environment; taking advantage of nearby transit services;
• providing good site access and circulation and an adequate supply of parking for residents and visitors;
• locating and screening service areas, ramps and garbage storage to minimize the impact on adjacent streets and residences; and
• providing indoor and outdoor recreation space for building residents in every significant multi-unit residential development.

33In addition, Policy 2.3.1(3) requires that developments in Mixed Use Areas that are adjacent or close to Neighbourhoods:

• be compatible with those Neighbourhoods;
• provide a gradual transition of scale and density, as necessary to achieve the objectives of the Official Plan through the stepping down of buildings towards and setbacks from those Neighbourhoods;
• maintain adequate light and privacy for residents in those Neighbourhoods;
• orient and screen lighting and amenity areas so as to minimize impacts upon adjacent land in those Neighbourhoods;
• locate and screen service areas, any surface parking and access to underground and structured parking so as to minimize impacts on adjacent lands in those Neighbourhoods, and enclose service and access areas where distancing and screening do not sufficiently mitigate visual, noise and odour impacts upon adjacent land in those Neighbourhoods; and
• attenuate resulting traffic and parking impacts on adjacent neighbourhood streets so as not to significantly diminish the residential amenity of those Neighbourhoods.

34While these elements of the OP represent extensive reasons in support of the Settlement Proposal, Mr. Volpentesta continued in his testimony providing supplemental rationale in common with the objectives of the OP. These objectives included:

• Policy 2.3.1(4) sets out that intensification of land adjacent to Neighbourhoods will be carefully controlled so that Neighbourhoods are protected from negative impact.
• Section 3.1.1 sets out policies applying to the public realm, including streets, parks, open spaces and public buildings.
• Policy 3.1.1(1) states that the public realm is comprised of all public and private spaces to which the public has access.
• Policy 3.1.1(6) provides that city streets are significant public open spaces which connect people and places and support the development of sustainable, economically vibrant and complete communities.
• Policy 3.1.1(13) states that sidewalks and boulevards will be designed to provide safe, attractive, interesting and comfortable spaces for users of all ages and abilities.
• Policy 3.1.1(15) new and existing city blocks and development lots.
• Section 3.1.2 sets out policies applying to built form, the preamble of which states that our quality of life and personal enjoyment of the public realm depend in part on the buildings that define and support the edges of our streets, parks and open spaces.
• Policy 3.1.2(1) provides that development will be located and organized to fit with its existing and/or planned context.
• Policy 3.1.2(3) indicates that development will protect privacy within adjacent buildings by providing setbacks and separation distances from neighbouring properties and adjacent building walls containing windows.
• Policy 3.1.2(4) indicates that development will locate and organize vehicle parking, vehicular access and ramps, loading, servicing, storage areas, and utilities to minimize their impact and improve the safety and attractiveness of the public realm, the site and surrounding properties.
• Policy 3.1.2(5) sets out policies to ensure that development will be located and massed to fit within the existing and planned context, define and frame the edges of the public realm with good street proportion, fit with the character, and ensure access to direct sunlight and daylight on the public realm.
• Policy 3.1.2(6) states that development will be required to provide good transition in scale between areas of different building heights and/or intensity of use in consideration of both the existing and planned contexts of neighbouring properties and the public realm. Policy 3.1.2(7) further provides that transition in scale will be provided within the development site(s) and measured from the shared and adjacent property line(s).
• Policy 3.1.2(10) provides that development will promote civic life and provide amenity for pedestrians in the public realm to make areas adjacent to streets, parks and open spaces attractive, interesting, comfortable and functional.
• Policy 3.1.2(11) provides that new indoor and outdoor shared amenity spaces provided as part of multi-unit residential developments should be high quality, well designed, and consider the needs of residents of all ages and abilities over time and throughout the year.

Mid-Rise Guidelines

35In July 2010, City Council directed staff to use the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards contained in the Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study in the evaluation of new mid-rise buildings. In June 2016, City Council approved the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards Addendum; the Addendum is to be used together with the Performance Standards during the evaluation of development applications, until such time as the City Council considers and adopts updated guidelines.

36These guidelines technically do not apply to the subject site; however, they have become best practice when assessing mid-rise proposals across much of the City, especially for sites that front onto major streets, including Finch Avenue East.

37Section 3.1.3 outlines the built form requirements by building type. As it relates to Mid-rise Buildings, Policy 3.1.3(4) provides those mid-rise buildings will be designed to:

• have heights generally no greater than the width of the right-of-way that it fronts onto (my emphasis);
• maintain street proportion and open views of the sky from the public realm by stepping back building massing generally at a height equivalent to 80% of the adjacent right-of-way width; and
• allow for daylight and privacy on occupied ground floor units by providing appropriate facing distances, building heights, angular planes and step-backs.
• Policy 3.1.3(6) provides those mid-rise buildings on deep sites should be designed to provide and frame accessible and well-proportioned open spaces that have access to sunlight and daylight.

38The Tribunal acknowledges that while the Mid-rise guidelines may not apply to this project, they do nevertheless, provide instructive best practices from a design perspective.

Zoning By-law Amendments

39The Draft ZBA to By-law 7625 would re-zone the subject site from C1 zone to RM6 zone with a new exception and O1 zone in order to permit the Settlement Proposal and protect the existing natural heritage area along the easterly boundary of the subject site. The new RM6 zone exception would allow for the following:

• Revisions to various definitions in By-law 7625 to be in-line with those contained in By-law 569-2013;
• Permit the uses contained within the CR zone of By-law 569-2013, as well as other provisions, in order to bring the subject site into conformity with the new City-wide zoning by-law;
• Permit a total gross floor area of 31,500 square metres, of which a minimum of 900 square metres must be non-residential gross floor area;
• Allow for an 11-storey building with a height of 37.5 metres measured from grade to the top of the roof, plus a mechanical penthouse;
• Allow for shared residential visitor parking spaces and non-residential parking spaces;
• Allow for certain vertical and horizontal projections to facilitate the Settlement Proposal; and
• Allow for a temporary sales centre or rental office on the subject site.

Conditions of Approval

40The witness further testified the Applicant is currently finalizing the Site Plan application conditions with City staff. The appeal of the Site Plan application is being held in abeyance until such time as City staff circulate a draft Notice of Approval Conditions letter. The Tribunal agrees with this condition and shall also include a list of further conditions in the final Order.

CONCLUSION

41The Tribunal agrees that based on the foregoing uncontroverted evidence from the witness, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development and the Applications: (1) have regard to matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Planning Act; (2) are consistent with the PPS pursuant to s. 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act; (3) conform to the policies of the Growth Plan pursuant to s. 3(5)(b) of the Planning Act; (4) conform to the City’s OP pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Planning Act; and (5) have regard to the criteria set out in s. 41 of the Planning Act. Furthermore, in light of the settlement being endorsed by the City, the Tribunal makes its findings while exercising appropriate regard for the decision of the City pursuant to s. 2.1(1)(a) of the Act.

42The uncontested witness testimony also emphasized that in its totality and in terms of each of its constituent elements, the application is consistent with the PPS (2020) and conforms with the Growth Plan (2019) all of which support intensification on sites within the built-up urban areas that are well served by municipal infrastructure, including transit.

43The Tribunal also agrees that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the intent and policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, featuring a compatible form of mixed-use intensification on the subject site and within its surrounding context. Furthermore, the witness opined the subject site is an ideal candidate for intensification given its size, depth, grade variation, frontage along a major street, location with the Mixed-Use Areas designation, access to transit service and community services and facilities.

44Finally, the Tribunal agrees with the witness’ opinion that from a built form and urban design perspective, the Settlement Proposal is contextually appropriate and will be a high-quality addition to the area, in conformity with the built form policies of the City’s OP and in keeping with the objectives of the City’s Mid-Rise Guidelines. Furthermore, the Tribunal agrees with the witness testimony that in terms of height and massing, the proposal will fit harmoniously within the context of existing developments in the surrounding area, and the proposed building has been sited and oriented to provide for appropriate transitions to the surrounding low-rise dwellings to the north, east and west and has been carefully designed to minimize potential built form impacts, including shadowing, overlook and privacy.

45It is also noted by the Tribunal that due to a legislative change that a previous s. 37 component of the Settlement Proposal is no longer valid and therefore a previous request for a condition to enter into a s. 37 Agreement no longer applies.

46The Tribunal agrees with these conclusions and therefore, adopts the Settlement Proposal agreed to by the Parties in March 2022, subject to the following conditions.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

47In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning evidence and expert opinions provided by Mr. Volpentesta. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, utilizes an underdeveloped mixed use site located on an identified major street, is supported by frequent existing transit and contributes to the range of housing options, and in particular, with the increase in three-bedroom dwelling units as desired by the City.

48The Tribunal has considered the concerns raised by the Participants but was not persuaded that the concerns they have raised are either sustainable given the evidence offered in support of the planned development, or otherwise bears relevance to the land use planning merits of the proposal.

49The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and conforms to the relevant directives established by the Growth Plan, and as maintained by the OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest. More significantly, the proposal furthers the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.

ORDER

50THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and Zoning By-law No. 7625 and No. 569-2013 are hereby amended in principle. The Final Order of the Tribunal is being withheld pending confirmation from the City Solicitor that the City has received the following conditions:

a. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor; b. The owner has resubmitted the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report and Hydrogeological Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; c. The owner has entered into an agreement or agreements or otherwise secured the design, construction, and the provision of financial securities for any required upgrades or improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development as may be identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater - 38 - Management Report, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and d. The residential visitor parking rate has been resolved to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services.

51THE TRIBUNAL ALSO ORDERS that the matter is subject to a Site Plan Control application until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

a. the City has issued Notice of Approval Conditions to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

Should any issues arise with the implementation of these conditions, the Panel can be spoken to.

“Steven T. Mastoras” STEVEN T. MASTORAS MEMBER

“Steven Cooke” STEVEN COOKE 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.