Glaze Dev LP v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 50957

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004803

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

Applicant/Appellant: Glaze Dev LP

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

Description: To facilitate the development of a 34-storey mixed use building

Reference Number: 22 177066 NNY 15 OZ

Property Address: 2-20 Glazebrook Avenue

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004803

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004803

OLT Case Name: Glaze Dev LP v. Toronto (City)

Heard: April 14, 2023 by video conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Glaze Developments LP

D. Angelucci M. Foderick (in absentia)

1840 Bayview LP

Z. Fleisher D. Bronskill (in absentia)

Broadway Area Residents Association (“BARA”)

M. Kemerer

City of Toronto

J. Braun M. LaFortune (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE AND S. deBOER ON APRIL 14, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This decision is the result of the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) pertaining to the Appeal by Glaze Developments LP (the “Appellant”) due to the City of Toronto’s (the “City”) indecision on the Zoning By-law Application to amend By-law No. 569-2013 within the statutory timeframe.

2The address of the Subject Property is municipally known as 2-20 Glazebrook Avenue in the City.

3The intent of the site-specific Zoning By-law application is to develop the Subject Lands for a 34-storey mixed-use building. The application proposal includes 434 residential units and approximately 314 square metres of retail space. The Application proposes a total gross floor area of 29,600 square metres with 91 underground parking spaces.

4At the beginning of the CMC, the Tribunal marked the Affidavit of Service of Robert Daniel Edward Jefferson dated March 29, 2023, as Exhibit 1 to the Hearing.

PARTY REQUESTS

5At the CMC, the following Organizations requested Party status to be approved by the Tribunal:

• 1840 Bayview LP – represented by Zachary Fleisher
• Broadway Area Residents Association (“BARA”) – represented by Marc Kemerer

6The Parties were granted Party Status as there was no opposition to their requests by the Appellant or the City. The Tribunal approved their requests due to the proximity of the development to the Parties and its possible impacts to their interests.

PARTICIPANT REQUESTS

7Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal received Participant Status requests from the following:

• Geoff Kettel (for Leaside Residents Association Incorporated)
• John W. Dreyer
• Joan Stephens
• Louise Bellingham
• Martyn Riddle
• Salar Heidar Damghani
• Aya McMillan
• Janet Lo
• Janet Mackinnon
• Jim Parker
• Marko Krstovic
• Michele McMaster
• Sarah Coombs
• Jeff Latto (for South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association)
• Marie Fullerton
• Jill Hamilton
• John Lumsden
• Margaret Harper
• William and Wendy Swift
• Farzi Pourmoetamed
• Noori Ali
• Barbara and Hugh Fletcher
• Catherine Seiden

8During the CMC, the following persons requested Participant status:

• Laurie Sims
• Dionis Hristov
• Joshua Chan

9All of the individuals listed above were granted Participant status for this matter.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESOLUTION

10The Tribunal asked the Parties if there would be a possibility of a settlement and informed them that Tribunal-led mediation would be available if the Parties deemed it necessary. The Parties told the Tribunal that if they felt it was necessary, they were open to the option of Tribunal-led mediation, however, it was not needed at this time. The Parties stated that they would be open to discuss resolution to some or all of the issues that were outstanding in this matter in order to make the merits hearing as efficient as possible.

11The Appellant stated that they will work with the other Parties in order to reduce the length of the hearing. The Appellant stated they would contact the case coordinator in advance of the hearing if fewer hearing days will be needed.

ISSUES LIST AND PROCEDURAL ORDER

12A draft Issues List (“IL”) and Procedural Order (“PO”) was submitted by the Appellant to the Tribunal prior to the commencement of the CMC. The Tribunal notes that the submitted IL and PO were not agreed upon by the Parties. The Appellant agreed to work with the other Parties to provide an updated and agreed upon draft IL and PO to the Tribunal for approval by April 21, 2023.

13There was discussion as to the number of witnesses and length of hearing that would be needed for the matter. Based on the number of witnesses that are planned to be called, it was agreed upon that a nine-day hearing would be needed to resolve the matter.

14The Parties agreed that a further CMC is not needed at this time.

15Subsequent to the CMC, the Parties submitted an agreed upon IL and PO to the Tribunal for approval. The Tribunal has reviewed the IL and PO and approved it in its entirety. The IL and PO will be used as the agreed upon rules, procedures and issues that are to be heard at the hearing.

16The Tribunal has scheduled a nine-day hearing to commence on Monday, March 18, 2024, at 10 a.m. by video hearing.

17Parties 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:

GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

18Parties 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

19Persons 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 558-205-565.

20Individuals 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 hearing by video 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.

OTHER MATTERS

21The Tribunal asked if there were any other issues or matters that needed to be discussed before the closure of the CMC. No other issues or matters were needed to be discussed with the Tribunal.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that a hearing of the merits will commence on Monday, March 18, 2024, at 10 a.m. by video hearing.

23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the agreed upon Issues List and Procedural Order in “Attachment 1” below will be the rules, procedures and issues to be used to guide the merits hearing.

24The members are not seized, however, may assist with future case management, schedules permitting.

25No further notice will be given.

“A. Sauve”

A. sauve

MEMBER

“S. DeBoer”

S. DEBOER

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.

Attachment 1

PROCEDURAL ORDER

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004803

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

Applicant/Appellant: Glaze Dev LP

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

Description: To facilitate the development of a 34-storey mixed use building

Reference Number: 22 177066 NNY 15 OZ

Property Address: 2-20 Glazebrook Avenue

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004803

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004803

OLT Case Name: Glaze Dev LP v. City of Toronto

Purpose of the Procedural Order

Case management conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a party or a participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the case management conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the case management conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

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 hearing will begin on Monday March 18, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. by video hearing.

3. The length of the hearing is nine (9) 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 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

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. An issue can be removed from the issues list without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.

6. The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4. 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 should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. 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.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. 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 Friday November 17, 2023 (122 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and in accordance with Section 22. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. 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 Friday December 8, 2023 (101 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday December 15, 2023 (94 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing with the Tribunal’s case coordinator on or before Friday December 22, 2023 (87 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

11. 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 22 below. 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/they 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 13.

12. 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 13. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in Section 13.

13. On or before Thursday January 18, 2024 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with Section 22.

14. On or before Thursday January 18, 2024 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with Section 22. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless permitted by the Tribunal.

15. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal to the other parties on or before Friday August 18, 2023 (213 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence). The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the plans, except those that are very minor, after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

16. On or before Friday March 1, 2024 (17 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with Section 22. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. On or before Friday February 2, 2024 (45 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), parties may provide to all other parties and the Tribunal’s case coordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with Section 22.

18. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the Tribunal’s case coordinator in accordance with Section 22 on or before Friday March 8, 2024 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness 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 preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday March 1, 2024 (17 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the 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 preliminary hearing plan. Any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal or on consent of parties. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the preliminary hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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 the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable.

23. 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.

These Members are not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

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 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Friday August 18, 2023 (213 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

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

Friday November 17, 2023 (122 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

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

Friday December 8, 2023 (101 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Last date to challenge witnesses or qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence (if any)

Friday December 15, 2023 (94 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Experts meeting prior to this date

Friday December 22, 2023 (87 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Statement of Agreed Facts

Thursday January 18, 2024 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

Friday February 2, 2024 (45 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

Friday March 1, 2024 (17 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

Friday March 1, 2024 (17 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal

Friday March 8, 2024 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)

Finalize Joint Document Book

Monday March 18, 2024 to Thursday March 28, 2024

Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES:

1. Glaze Dev LP
2. City of Toronto
3. Broadway Area Residents Association
4. 1840 Bayview LP

PARTICIPANTS (in alphabetical order):

1. Aya McMillan
2. Barbara and Hugh Fletcher
3. Catherine Seiden
4. Dionis Hristov
5. Farzi Pourmoetamed
6. Geoff Kettel (for Leaside Residents Association Incorporated)
7. Janet Lo
8. Janet Mackinnon
9. Jeff Latto (for South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association)
10. Jill Hamilton
11. Jim Parker
12. Joan Stephens
13. John Lumsden
14. John W. Dreyer
15. Joshua Chan
16. Laurie Sims
17. Louise Bellingham
18. Margaret Harper
19. Marie Fullerton
20. Marko Krstovic
21. Martyn Riddle
22. Michele McMaster
23. Noori Ali
24. Salar Heidar Damghani
25. Sarah Coombs
26. Wendy and William Swift

ATTACHMENT 3

LIST OF ISSUES

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

CITY OF TORONTO:

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for the purposes of the Planning Act as set out in Section 1.1 of the Planning Act?
2. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in subsections 2(f), (h), (n), (p), (q), and (r) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

3. Are the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act, including Policies 1.1.1(g), 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1(a), 1.5, 1.7.1(d) and (e), 3.2.1 and 4.6?

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

4. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow - Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), including Policies 2.2.1.4 (e), 2.2.2.3(b), (d) and (f), 2.2.5.3 and 5.2.5.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan

5. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan (the “Official Plan”) with respect to the Mixed Use Areas (4.5), Neighbourhoods (4.1.1), Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.3.1.7), the Built Environment (3.1), the Human Environment (3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.1.4, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3), the Natural Environment (specifically policies 3.4.1(f) and 3.4.2), and Implementation (5), among others?

Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405)

6. Do the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (OPA 405), being Chapter 6, Section 21 of the Official Plan, with respect to the following: Vision Statement (1.1), Goals (1.2), Character Areas (1.3), Area Structure (2), Midtown Transit Station Areas (2.4), Land Use (2.5), Retail Streets (2.6), Parks and Public Realm (3), Mobility (4), Built Form (5), Housing (7), Making it Happen (Implementation) (9), and Interpretation (10), among others?

Site Organization

7. Does the proposed site organization, including the location of buildings, setbacks, location of non-residential uses and servicing locations, 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?
8. Is the Site appropriately organized to minimize impacts within the site, including vehicular street access, driveways, ramps, drive aisles, bicycle and vehicle parking, loading, servicing, storage areas, utilities, and related structures?

Built Form

9. Is the Site appropriate for a tall building or a mid-rise building?
10. Are the built form type, height, density, relative grade, angular plane, massing, location, placement and scale of the proposed development appropriate, given principles of good planning and urban design, including but not limited to the following: the relationship of the proposed development to the surrounding planned and existing context, transition to adjacent and nearby Neighbourhoods lands that are outside of OPA 405 area, shadow impacts and relationship to the public realm?
11. Does the proposed development establish appropriate relationships at grade, including setbacks, streetwalls, and the provision of an appropriate pedestrian realm including contributions to streetscaping, public spaces, and private open spaces?

Guidelines

12. If it is determined that a tall building is appropriate for the site, does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Tall Building Design Guidelines?
13. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020)?
14. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-Unit Buildings?

Housing

15. Does the proposed development reflect the Official Plan and the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan's goals of providing a full range of housing in terms of form, tenure, and affordability?

Shadow Impact

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?

Amenity Space

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

Transportation

19. Do the proposed development and zoning by-law amendment provide sufficient parking and loading for the development?

Public Interest and Good Planning

20. Is the proposed development and Zoning By-law Amendment good planning and in the public interest?

Site Specific Issues

21. In accordance with provisions for soil volume in Section EC 1.1 of the Toronto Green Standard, does the site provide appropriate configuration of soil in relationship to the adjacent public realm, below-/above-/at- grade utilities, and vehicular facilities including the below-grade parking garage?
22. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate transportation demand management strategy that satisfies Official Plan policies 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.9?
23. Are the water, wastewater, stormwater, and other essential infrastructure of the site and surrounding areas and other relevant areas, able to accommodate the proposed development?

Order if Approved

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

(a) the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(b) the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Engineering and Construction Services matters in the Engineering and Construction Services Memorandum dated September 7, 2022, or as may be updated, in response to further submissions filed by the Owner, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer;

(c) the owner has submitted a revised Travel Demand Management Plan acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such study be secured if required;

(d) the owner has submitted a Methane Gas Investigation Report acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer, and that such matters arising from such study be secured if required;

(e) the owner has satisfactorily addressed matters from the Urban Forestry memorandum dated September 13, 2022, including the submission of a Public Utilities Plan and Soil Volumes Plan, or as may be updated, in response to further submissions filed by the Owner, all to the satisfaction of Urban Forestry; and

(f) the owner has submitted an updated complete Toronto Green Standards (TGS) Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

BROADWAY AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION:

None.

1840 BAYVIEW LP:

None.

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

IN CHIEF:

1. Glaze Dev LP
2. City of Toronto
3. Broadway Area Residents Association
4. 1840 Bayview LP

REPLY:

1. Glaze Dev LP