Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 13, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000697
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: SLH Lakeshore Inc.
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application – failure to make a decision
Description: To permit a mixed-use development of two residential towers of 38 and 43 storeys containing 899 dwelling units above a 4-storey mixed-use podium
Reference Number: 22 204512 STE 14 OZ
Municipality: City of Toronto
Property Address: 685 Lake Shore Boulevard East
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000697
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000697
OLT Case Name: SLH Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: SLH Lakeshore Inc.
Subject: Site Plan Control Application – failure to approve
Description: To permit a mixed-use development of two residential towers of 38 and 43 storeys containing 899 dwelling units above a 4-storey mixed-use podium
Reference Number: 22 204511 STE 14 SA
Municipality: City of Toronto
Property Address: 685 Lake Shore Boulevard East
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000698
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000697
OLT Case Name: SLH Lakeshore Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: February 1, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
SLH Lakeshore Inc. (“SLH”)
Jasmine Fraser, Eileen Costello (in absentia)
City of Toronto (“City”)
Sarah O’Connor, Lauren Pinder, Joshua Vetere (Articling Student)
115 Saulter South OP (“Saulter”)
Anne Benedetti
1956565 Ontario Inc.
Joe Hoffman, David Bronskill (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND J. DENYES ON FEBRUARY 1, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held in this matter with a view to discuss and identify the procedural requirements relating to applications filed by SLH seeking certain planning permissions with respect to a proposed mixed-use development of two residential towers of 38 and 43 storeys containing 899 dwelling units above a four-storey mixed-use podium on a property located at 685 Lake Shore Boulevard East in the City (“Subject Site”). The Subject Site is located within the McCleary District under the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”), which provides direction for coordinated planning for each District.
STATUS REQUESTS:
2The hearing commenced by confirming Party and Participant status of the stakeholders present. At the first CMC held on November 17, 2023, both Hydro One Networks (“HON”) and Tepfam sought Party Status. After deliberations HON and Tepham were conferred Participant Status with an option to seek Party status at this CMC should they decide it was in their interest to do so. Ms. Dhillon, counsel on behalf of HON was present and indicated HON remains content with Participant Status. She advised that should an adverse position arise as a result of the issues being brought forth by the Parties that would negatively impact HON’s property, she indicated that HON may take a more proactive approach to this matter going forward.
3No representative from Tepfam Holdings Inc. was present to indicate whether they were seeking Party Status.
4Mr. Joe Hoffman, counsel to 1956565 Ontario Inc., stated he represents the adjacent landowner abutting the site to the east. 1956565 Ontario Inc. requested Party Status as it has a direct interest in the built form relationship between the two properties and the coordination of infrastructure, among other things. It is the intention of 1956565 Ontario Inc. to develop its property in the future.
5Hearing no objection from the Parties, the Panel conferred Party status to 1956565 Ontario Inc.
6There were no requests for Participant Status at this CMC.
NEXT STEP
7Ms. Fraser advised the Panel that SLH, the City and Saulter attended a mediation assessment led by the Tribunal on January 22, 2024. The Parties are hopeful to have mediation scheduled in late April or early May. Counsel requested a 3-week hearing in December 2024. Ms. Fraser indicated the area is currently undergoing a precinct planning process which has been outstanding for 17 months with no indication of whether that process will be further delayed.
8Ms. Fraser further reiterated that her client’s project was one of the first projects to be advanced in this particular block and that there are now many landowners at the table. Ms. Fraser clarified this is a site-specific appeal and should be advanced despite the precinct planning process. She also requested that the draft Site Plan application be held in abeyance until the ZBA is decided by the Tribunal.
9Ms. O’Connor on behalf of the City, indicated it was premature to set hearing dates as the matter of the precinct planning process is still in the hands of the public. She indicated that policy decisions are required to happen within mixed-use districts of the City and that the City needs time for the precinct plan process to be completed. Ms.