Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 26, 2023 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000018

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

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 OA Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000018 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000018 OLT Case Name: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 OA Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000019 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000018

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

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 SA Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000020 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000018

Heard: June 27, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church	J. Alati, G. O’Brien
City of Toronto	C. Dougherty, J. Braun, in absentia
Toronto Region Conservation Authority	B. Montgomery
York Mills Valley Association	I. Flett
Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association	Peter Henderson*

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

INTRODUCTION

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted relating to appeals brought pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) and s.114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, c. 11, Schedule A, from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within statutory timeframes of the Act and the City of Toronto Act with respect to applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Site Plan Approval (“SPA”). The appeal has been filed by Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church (“Appellant”) regarding the property located at 25 Old York Mills Road, Toronto (“Subject Property”).

2The purpose of the OPA, ZBA and SPA applications is to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the Subject Property with a 12-storey mixed-use building comprising a total gross floor area of 9,476 square metres (“m2”) and which would include residential units, church, and multifunction space, daycare space and community space, and which would incorporate retail uses at-grade (“Proposal”).

3The Affidavit of Service for the first CMC was previously marked as Exhibit 1, and Notice of this hearing was properly given at the first CMC.

STATUS REQUESTS, PROCEDURAL ORDER, AND ISSUES LIST

4Mr. Peter Henderson provided the Tribunal with evidence of the Incorporation of the Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association (“THHCA”) and a requisite letter duly authorizing Mr. Henderson to represent the THHCA as a Party to the matter. No objections were submitted by any of the other Parties to the request and the THHCA was conferred Party Status, as represented by Mr. Henderson.

5Ms. Phillippa Perkins resides across the street from the Subject Property and had previously submitted a detailed written Party Status request form which raised several concerns, including but not limited to built form, traffic, and parking. The Tribunal provided her with additional time to further consider this request. At this second CMC, Ms. Perkins chose to submit a written Participant Status request instead, and is, therefore, conferred Participant Status to these proceedings.

6Parties have been working to establish an agreed-upon draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), which was submitted in time for this second CMC, and were awaiting confirmation of the additional Party before committing to a date for a final PO and IL. All Parties have agreed to submit a final PO and IL to the Tribunal on or before July 7, 2023 on consent.

7The Tribunal is encouraged by the level of cooperation to date between all the Parties, and again reminded the Parties that Tribunal-assisted mediation is available upon request through the Case Management Coordinator.

HEARING SCHEDULE

8Counsel for the Appellant requests a Hearing event as early as possible, with the indulgence of the Tribunal, and indicates there will likely be a total of four to six witnesses who will testify on behalf of the Appellant. Other Parties anticipate a range of four to six possible witnesses, which is expected to be clarified in the final PO and IL by July 7, 2023.

9After a careful review regarding the availability of Parties for a 10-day Video Hearing, the Tribunal confirms that a Hearing date is scheduled to commence on Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 10 a.m. and is scheduled to continue to/through Thursday November 30, 2023.

10Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://meet.goto.com/370987861

Access code: 370-987-861

11Parties 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

12Persons 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: (Toll-Free): 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391.

13Individuals 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 Video 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.

ORDER

14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that a Hearing of this matter by video conference is scheduled to commence on Wednesday November 15, 2023 for a period of 10 days.

15THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that the attached Procedural Order and Issues List received on or before July 7, 2023, and marked as Schedule 1, will govern the hearing proceedings on the date stipulated in this Order.

16THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that:

• Party Status to this hearing is conferred on the Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association (“THHCA”), as represented by Mr. Peter Henderson.
• Participant Status to this hearing is conferred on Ms. Phillippa Perkins.

17The Member is not seized of this matter.

18No further notice will be provided.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS 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.

SCHEDULE 1

Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

CASE NOS.: OLT-23-000018

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

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 OA Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000018 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000018 OLT Case Name: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 OA Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000019 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000018

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

Appellant: Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit a 12-storey mixed use building Reference Number: 22 179212 NNY 15 SA Property Address: 25 Old York Mills Road Municipality: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000020 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000018

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 November 15, 2023 at 10 a.m.. The hearing will be held by videoconference, unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal and on consent of the Parties.

3. The length of the hearing will be about 10 days, scheduled to conclude on November 28, 2023. 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 set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. Aside from the potential for the removal of issues as they may be resolved, 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 shall be as 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 should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the second 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. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the Hearing, in the event that the revisions are not minor nor do they arise from changes requested by the City or another public authority, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before Friday, July 7, 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 but that this paragraph may not be pleaded by the requestor as an implicit acceptance of the potential adjournment.

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 are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before Tuesday, August 8, 2023, and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A Party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area(s) 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 Thursday, August 17, 2023.

11. In the event a Party files a list of witnesses that does not include a witness with the technical expertise to address such Party’s technically related issues, said issues shall be struck from the Issues List set out in Attachment 3 upon written request made to the Tribunal.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field(s) shall meet at least once on or before Friday September 1, 2023, to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the Hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if any agreement is reached, the witnesses shall prepare an Agreed Statement of Facts and identify the remaining issues to be addressed at the Hearing and provide this statement to all of the Parties on or before Wednesday, September 6, 2023.

13. 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 paragraph 15 below. Instead of a Witness Statement, the expert may file their 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. 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 paragraph 15.

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 paragraph 15 below. A Party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 15 below.

15. On or before Wednesday, September 20, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and Expert Witness Statements to the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

16. On or before Wednesday, September 20, 2023, a Participant shall provide copies of their written Participant statement to the Parties and the Tribunal case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A Participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before Friday, October 6, 2023, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence received and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

18. On or before Wednesday, October 4, 2023, the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.

19. On or before Monday, October 23, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, and all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

20. 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 fifteen (15) days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

21. 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 other Parties and the Tribunal at least seven (7) days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. On or before Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the Parties shall prepare and file with the Tribunal a Hearing Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is expected to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Hearing Plan”). The Hearing Plan should be used to guide the Hearing Event, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Hearing Plan throughout the Hearing Event.

23. The Parties shall cooperate and share the costs to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the Tribunal case co-ordinator on or before Wednesday, November 1, 2023. All Parties must be served with the joint document book in an accessible electronic format in accordance with paragraph 24.

24. All filings of documents and materials shall be in electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). If requested, the Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended.

25. 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.

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.

Attachment 1

Summary of Dates

DATE	EVENT
On or before Friday, July 7, 2023	Applicant to circulate revised proposal, if any, together with supporting materials to the Parties.
On or before Tuesday, August 8, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
On or before Thursday, August 17, 2023	Deadline to challenge witness qualifications
On or before Friday, September 1, 2023	Experts meetings, if any, prior to this date
On or before Wednesday, September 6, 2023	Experts to file agreed statement of facts and remaining issues (if any)
On or before Wednesday, September 20, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
On or before Wednesday, October 4, 2023	Parties to Advise Tribunal if any hearing dates are to be released from the hearing calendar (if any)
On or before Friday, October 6, 2023	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
On or before Monday, October 23, 2023	Exchange of visual evidence
On or before Wednesday, November 1, 2023	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
On or before Wednesday, November 1, 2023	Joint Document Book filed with the Tribunal
November 15, 2023	Hearing commences

Attachment 2

List of Parties/Participants

Parties

1. Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1 John Alati E-mail: johna@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4509 Grace O’Brien E-mail: graceo@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4507

2. City of Toronto Legal Services Division 26th Floor, Metro Hall 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 Jessica Braun E-mail: jessica.braun@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-7237 Colin Dougherty E-mail: colin.dougherty@toronto.ca Tel: 416-392-3116

3. Toronto Region Conservation Authority Legal Counsel 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5R6 Barbara Montgomery E-mail: barbara.montgomery@trca.com Tel: 416-417-8275 Fogler, Rubinoff LLP TD Centre North Tower 77 King Street West, Suite 3000, P.O. Box 95 Toronto, Ontario M5K 1G8 Tim Duncan E-mail: tduncan@foglers.com Tel: 416-941-8817

4. York Mills Valley Association Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Barristers and Solicitors 160 John Street, Suite 300 Toronto, Ontario M5V 2E5 Ian Flett E-mail: iflett@gillespielaw.ca Tel: 416-703-7034

5. Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association Director 45 York Mills Road, Suite 109 Toronto, Ontario M2P 1P2 Peter Henderson E-mail: pgdhenderson@gmail.com Tel: 416-820-8241

Participants

1. Richard Galbraith 10 Old York Mills Road, Suite 413 Toronto, Ontario M2P 2G9 E-mail: rickgalbraith1@gmail.com Tel: 416-931-5978

2. Phillipa Perkins 9 Campbell Crescent Toronto, Ontario M2P 1P1 E-mail: phillippa.perkins@gmail.com Tel: 416-454-1460

Attachment 3

Issues List

Note: The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all Parties agree that such an issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate or relevant for the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Are the proposed development and the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments consistent with the purposes of Section 1.1 of the Planning Act?
2. Do the proposed development and the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments 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 the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) Policies 1.1.1(g), 1.2.1(a), 1.7.1(d) and (e), 3.1 and 4.6?

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

4. Do the proposed development and the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow - Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), policies 2.2.5.3 and 4.2.2.3?

City of Toronto Official Plan

5. Do the proposed development and the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan (“the Official Plan”) with respect to the Neighbourhoods (4.1), Healthy Neighbourhoods (2.3.1), the Built Environment (3.1), the Human Environment (3.2), the Natural Environment 3.4, policies 3.4.8 and 3.4.11, and Implementation (5)?
6. 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?

Site Organization

7. Does the proposed site organization, including the location of buildings, setbacks, location of non-residential uses, 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. Does the site organization improve the safety and attractiveness, provide for vehicular street access, driveways, ramps, drive aisles, bicycle and vehicle parking, loading, servicing, storage areas, utilities, and related structures that are functional and safe?

Built form

9. Is the built form type, height, density, massing, location, placement, and scale of the proposed development appropriate, given principles of good planning and urban design?
10. Is the built form of the proposed development appropriate in relation to: a. the relationship of the proposed development to the surrounding planned and existing context; b. transition to adjacent and nearby Neighbourhoods land; c. shadow impacts; d. the pedestrian realm; e. surrounding built-form at grade, including setbacks and streetwalls; and f. public and private open spaces?

Land Use

11. Is the proposed mix of uses appropriate given the physical context of the site ?

Guidelines

12. Does the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards ?
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?

Amenity Space

15. Does the proposed development provide sufficient indoor and outdoor amenity space?

Transportation

16. Does the proposed development provide sufficient visitor and commercial parking and loading for the development?

Site Specific Issues

17. Is there flooding risk on the subject site caused by the flood plain west of the site? If so, is it adequately mitigated ?
18. Is the proposed 7.0 metre buffer appropriate?
19. Are the water, wastewater, stormwater, and other essential infrastructure of the site and relevant areas able to accommodate the proposed development?

Order if approved

20. 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 Official Plan and 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 14, 2022, or as may be updated during the course of the application review, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer; c. the owner has satisfactorily addressed the Toronto Region Conservation Authority matters in the Toronto Region Conservation Authority memo dated October 12, 2022, or as may be updated during the course of the application review.

Toronto Region Conservation Authority

1. Is the proposed development, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with Section 3.1, Natural Hazards, of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020)?
2. Do the proposed development, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment conform with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to the Natural Environment (3.4) Policies 3.4.6 and 3.4.8(c)?
3. Has the appropriate flood modelling been provided to confirm the floodplain cut and fill balance is acceptable?
4. Has the appropriate buffer from the revised flood line been provided and will the buffer and floodplain be conveyed to public ownership?
5. Is the setback proposed to the above and below grade structure from the lands to be conveyed to public ownership sufficient to allow for a future access for maintenance purposes or should it be a minimum of 3.0 metres?
6. Is adequate land and infrastructure provided to address drainage along the south side of the subject property?
7. Have the technical comments in Appendix A of TRCA’s letter of October 12, 2022 been addressed?

York Mills Valley Association

Planning Act

1. Are the applications for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws consistent with the purposes of the Planning Act found at section 1.1?
2. Do the applications for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws have regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in sections 2(f), (h), (n), (p), (q) and (r) of the Planning Act?

PPS, 2020

3. Are the applications for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) Policies 1.1.1; 1.1.3.2; 1.1.3.4; 1.4.1, 1.5.1 and 4.6?

Official Plan

4. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) conform to the Toronto Official Plan policies: a. Built form policies 3.1.3.1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); 3.1.3.2 - 10; 3.1.4.4-6; b. Parks and Open Spaces: 3.2.3.3; c. Land Use Designations – Development Criteria in Mixed Use Areas: 4.5.2; d. Land Use Designations – Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods 4.1.9.

Mid-Rise Design Guidelines

5. Does the proposed development achieve the intent and purpose of the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards (2010) and applicable addendum (2016)?

Built Form

6. Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment and proposed built form provide: a. Adequate transition to the neighbourhood? b. Respect the pedestrian realm? c. Adequate and appropriately designed private and public open space?

Land Use

7. Are the proposed uses appropriate for the subject site and its physical context?

Transportation

8. Does the proposed development provide sufficient parking supply for the proposed uses?
9. Is the site circulation plan and are the vehicular access points appropriate for this site and its context?
10. Are the forecast traffic volumes reflective of the anticipated uses, and will they lead to negative impacts?
11. Do the proposed ingress and egress points properly account for potential conflicts with other right-of-way users including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists?
12. Are there traffic impacts that will create unsafe conditions?

Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association

Red text refers to issues or parts of issues which the Applicant does not agree are appropriate nor can they be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

• Issues 1e and 9: the Applicant is not obliged to test alternative configurations of its proposal.
• Issue 6: this is not measurable. The Applicant cannot assess how those who intend to visit the proposed development intend to be transported to access the site.

Built Form

1. Does the massing of the proposed development fit within the planned context (type, height, density, location, placement and scale)? a. Do the height, setbacks and stepbacks of the proposed development meet the intent and purpose of the City of Toronto’s Mid-Rise Performance Standard guideline? b. Do the proposed streetwall heights and setbacks fit harmoniously within the planned context for the neighbourhood? c. Does the proposed development provide a good transition in height and scale between the area’s different building types, including residential single-family homes and townhomes? d. Does the proposed location and organization provide appropriate setbacks and landscaping on these setbacks, which enhance local character and provide attractive, safe transitions between the private and public realms? e. Does the proposed configuration of the proposed development adversely impact the privacy and noise and light pollution of neighbourhood residences? If so, how does this impact compare to other development configuration options and does the proposal adequately mitigate any adverse impacts?

2. Does the proposed site location and organization serve to create a development that meets the intent and purpose of City of Toronto’s Official Plan in relation to how it benefits the community and improves safety (City of Toronto Official Plan – Policies: 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.4)? a. Does the location and organization of the proposed development improve safety? b. Does the location and organization frame and support adjacent streets, lanes, parks and open spaces to promote civic life and the use of the public realm? c. Does the site organization minimize the impact and improve public safety and attractiveness of the public realm, in relation to the location and organization of the proposed vehicular access and ramps, loading zones, and service vehicle entrance?

Land Use

3. Is the proposed development required to meet the Land Use Designations – Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods and adjacent to Neighbourhoods (City of Toronto Official Plan – Policies: 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8)? If so, does it?
4. Are the proposed mixed uses appropriate for this site?
5. Are the proposed mixed uses appropriate given the context of the existing local community?
6. For each of the proposed mixed uses, how will those who intend to visit the proposed development intend to be transported to access the site?

Transportation

7. Does any increase in volume of motorized vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists (traffic) as a result of the proposed development, pose a safety risk in the immediate neighbourhood on and around Campbell Cres, when taking into consideration of any additional increase in traffic due to approved developments? If so, does the current proposal acceptably and appropriately mitigate the safety risk?
8. Does the proposed driveway location create safety concerns for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists? If so, how does this compare to other driveway location options, and does the current proposal appropriately mitigate these safety concerns?
9. Does the proposed driveway location pose a noise concern for immediate neighbours? If so, how does this compare to other driveway location options, and does the current proposal appropriately mitigate those noise concerns?
10. Would the lack of on-site drop-off areas for the proposed development create safety concerns for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists? If so, does the current proposal appropriately mitigate these safety concerns?
11. Does the proposed development provide appropriate parking for each of the proposed uses?

Site Specific Issue

12. Does the proposed development pose a flood risk to adjacent and neighbourhood properties due to insufficient drainage of water runoff (above- and under- ground) from East of the subject property? If so, does the proposed development design sufficiently mitigate this risk?

Attachment 4

Order of Evidence

1. Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church
2. City of Toronto
3. Toronto Region Conservation Authority
4. York Mills Valley Association
5. Townhomes of Hogg’s Hollow Community Association
6. Reply of Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church (if any)

Attachment 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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, 2021 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 the witness will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An Expert Witness Statement should include expert witness' (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues the expert witness 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 expert 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.